1951-11-09

Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the orders of the day may be delayed, let me say that last night in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) I said, as reported at page 861 of Hansard, that the agreement concerning the status of NATO forces had been ratified by Denmark and by Norway. In saying that I made an error. It is the protocol on the accession of Greece and Turkey to NATO that has been ratified by Denmark and Norway. We have not been advised yet by the government of the United States, which is the depository of both agreements on the status of NATO forces, and on the privileges and immunities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's national representatives and international staff, that any member country has ratified either agreement.



COMBINES LEGISLATION


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move:
That Messrs. Beaudry, Boucher, Carroll, Carter, Cauchon, Churchill, Croll, Dickey, Mrs. Fairclough, Fleming, Fulton, Garson, Gillis, Harkness, Harrison, Hees, Jutras, Mott, Murray (Oxford), McLean (Huron-Perth), Roberge, Shaw, Sinclair, Stuart (Charlotte), Thatcher, Welbourn be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of the joint special committee established Tuesday, November 6, 1951, to consider the interim report of the committee appointed to study combines legislation, tabled in the House of Commons, Friday, October 12,	1951, and to consider appropriate
amendments to the Combines Investigation Act based thereon.
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that the above members have been appointed to act on behalf of the Commons on the said joint committee of both houses.


Mr. Knowles:: I fear there is one error, one which occurred to me as I listened to the reading of the names. I sent the names for our group, in writing, to the government whip, and I am sure the names I submitted were
Messrs. Maclnnis and Thatcher instead of Messrs. Gillis and Thatcher. I am prepared either to move an amendment or to suggest that the minister change the name of Mr, Gillis to that of Mr. Maclnnis.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would have no objection; but how would it be if we leave it now. These are the names I got from the whip. If necessary we could make a subsequent motion on Monday to change the names.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house I have received a message from the Senate setting forth the names of those members of the Senate who have been appointed to consider and to study the interim report. Perhaps it would be satisfactory if I were to read those names. They are Senators Aseltine, Beaubien, Burchill, Dupuis, Fogo, Godbout, Golding, Hawkins, Horner, Lambert, Pratt and Vaillan-court.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Classification of loans of Canadian chartered banks as of September 29, 1951, Statutes of Canada 1944-45, chapter 30; and classification of deposits in Canadian chartered banks as of September 29, 1951, Statutes of Canada 1944-45, chapter 30.-Mr. Abbott.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: This bill is to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, by deleting the words "if directed by regulation" from subsection 2 of section 21. The effect of this change is to ensure that producers in the designated area will be paid the regular storage charge for grain stored on the farm. The determination of the date from which payment is to commence is left to the Canadian wheat board, but the payment of such storage charges to producers is by this new subsection made compulsory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Committee on Radio Broadcasting RADIO BROADCASTING



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: Committee on Radio Broadcasting national broadcasting system be given the power and resources sufficient for its great national responsibilities.
The commission very carefully considered various proposals for changing the methods of control of broadcasting in this country.
I shall not try here to summarize its reasons for judgment against a new method of control. Although I think members who have not done so will find it very interesting to read these reasons in full, I should like to read its first recommendation on broadcasting summarizing its opinions on the kind of system we need. It is as follows:
We therefore recommend:
That the grant of the privilege of radio broadcasting in Canada continue to be under the control of the national government; that the control of the national broadcasting system continue to be vested in a single body responsible to parliament; that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as now constituted be that authority and continue to provide directly by its operations and indirectly by its control of the operations of others a national radio broadcasting service free from partisan influence.
The recommendation in effect summarized just what in the past successive governments and all political parties and parliamentary committees through the years thought to be the best kind of system for Canada. This government has been glad to have the assertions from this great commission report supporting the principles of the present system in Canada.
The government has been aware for some time of the critical financial situation into which the national system has been brought by economic changes, with prices and costs of all kinds rising greatly in the past fifteen years. The C.B.C. could not be expected to be a unique organization that could continue to operate with its main rates of revenue the same as in 1938. The government, however, wished to have the report of the Massey commission, and time for consideration of it, before proposing to parliament changes in the revenue structure of the C.B.C. The commission suggested that to maintain its present services and make some needed improvements the C.B.C. needs annual income in the next five years equal to one dollar per head of the total population of Canada. It suggested that any payments from public funds be covered by statute so that there could be no question of any government of the day possibly having political influence on the system through controlling the amount that annually might be proposed for the system. The commission recommended that the present receiving set licence fee be maintained and that payments be made by statute out of public funds to bring the total income up to the necessary minimum level.

The financial provision in the bill which will presently be before the house is designed to bring the income of the corporation up to about the equivalent of one dollar per head of the population. It does so by providing by law for the payment of a fixed sum of $6,250,000 each year to the corporation for five years. The sum of $4,750,000 is provided in the bill for the first year, 195152, because the C.B.C. has already received an interim grant of $1,500,000 this year, and the two together make the sum of $6,250,000. You will remember that in the estimates passed in June there was a grant of $1,500,000 to the C.B.C. These statutory payments, together with receipts from licence fees and from commercial revenues which should be reduced somewhat to carry out recommendations of the commission, should bring the corporation an annual sum about the equivalent of the one dollar per head figure. This would enable the corporation to maintain its present services and standards. It would also make possible in the five years ahead some of the needed improvements and extensions. It must be realized, however, that the corporation will still not be in a position to meet all the requests for service it has, or that will be made on it. The corporation, however, will have a pretty accurate knowledge of what revenues to expect over the next five years. It will have to plan its operations and development carefully over the five-year period to ensure that the most essential things are done. It is to be expected that the corporation on the new basis will have an operating surplus for the first two or three years of the period, but out of this surplus it must make some provision for capital expenditures that will be necessary ahead, for paying off some of its debts, and for meeting operating commitments throughout the period. The income of the corporation will still be relatively small in comparison with the income of broadcasting systems in many other countries and in relation to the size of Canada, and our need to broadcast in two languages. The system, however, will have a basis of revenue roughly equal to what it had before the war, adjusted for the increase in cost levels in Canada.
The royal commission recommended that the board of governors of the corporation be enlarged in order to make it more widely representative. This recommendation is met in the bill that will come before the house by the provision to increase the number of governors from nine to eleven.
The commission made a recommendation regarding a right of notice for broadcasters and right of hearing on matters directly affecting them. Several clauses in the bill

give practical and concrete application regarding the matter of right of notice and of hearing. There is provision that by law the corporation must, before ordering the suspension of the licence of a station, give notice to the licensee of the alleged violation and provide for an opportunity for him to be heard. There is also a new proposed subsection providing that the corporation must give formal notice and reasonable opportunity for hearing representations before making or amending regulations affecting private stations. Another subsection provides that the corporation give legal notice before considering applications regarding licences referred to it by the Department of Transport.
Under its own procedure the corporation has for some years given due notice in such cases and held public hearings. These new provisions will lay legal obligations on the corporation in connection with notice and hearings.
The commission also recommended that persons engaged in broadcasting in Canada directly and adversely affected by final decision by the board of governors, on any matter in which the board has final authority, have the right of appeal to a federal court against substantial miscarriage of justice. The bill to come before the house provides that where the corporation orders the suspension of a licence of a private station, the licensee may appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada on any question of law. The power to order suspension of a licence is the chief final sanction which the corporation has with regard to private stations.
The commission also make another recommendation regarding ways of ensuring that private radio stations in Canada employ more Canadian talent. As a measure in this direction the bill to come before the house would strengthen the position of the corporation by giving it specific powers to make regulations to promote and ensure the greater use of Canadian talent by both C.B.C. and private stations, and to obtain information from stations needed for carrying out its supervisory duties.
While we are proposing amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act I have mentioned, based on recommendations of the royal commission, we have taken the opportunity in this bill to propose some other minor amendments which seem advisable in view of changed conditions since the act was passed in 1936, and for purposes of clarification.
There are several changes in wording for the purpose of making clear when reference is being made to the Minister of Transport
Committee on Radio Broadcasting and when to the minister designated for carrying out the duties under the act of dealing with the C.B.C.
It is proposed to change the period of office for the chairman of the corporation from 3 years to 10 years. The post now is one which requires the occupant to give up all other connections. It seems, therefore, in fairness that occupants of the post should have a tenure of reasonable length of time. The longer period will be more in line with other important public positions, and would seem proper in the interests of holding or appointing to the post men of the necessary calibre. The longer period should also provide for extra public assurance of the impartiality of the chairman.
Another change in wording is to clear away an anomaly in connection with the pension plan of the corporation. Under the present wording of the act it is provided that the corporation may have a pension plan for its "employees" and, of course, has had a pension plan for a number of years. The word "employee" is used in the act, and under a legal technicality it has been ruled that the chairman is not an employee of the corporation but is defined as a "member" of the corporation. The amendment proposed would remove any legal doubt that the chairman or any other member of the corporation who worked full time at regular salary could properly participate in the pension plan.
Another amendment raises from $10,000 to $25,000 the size of commitments by the corporation for which approval by the governor in council is necessary. Because of changes in prices the real size of a $25,000 transaction today is only about the equivalent of a $10,000 transaction in 1936 when the act was passed. This amendment will save some delays and a good deal of paper work that has not been found to be necessary under present conditions, but will still provide for a check by the government on any large individual financial commitments by the corporation.
As I have said, the main provisions of the bill to come before the house are to give effect as considered advisable to the recommendations of the Massey commission which involve legislative action. A number of other recommendations of the commission can be implemented only by the C.B.C. itself. I believe the committee as well as studying this bill may also wish to study these other recommendations of the commission, and the plans of the corporation for meeting them.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, it is altogether desirable that this house should appoint at the earliest possible date a special committee on radio broadcasting

Committee on Radio Broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation, and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, following adequate discussion of this whole subject.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that at the outset of his remarks the Minister of National Revenue did suggest the desirability of linking together in the discussion today both the notice of motion that the committee should be set up and also the resolution which is to follow, which contemplates the introduction of a measure to contain a number of amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act. I think the linking of those two subjects together in the discussion today will not only expedite the discussion in the end, but will contribute greatly to a more intelligent treatment of the related problems.
Sir, the house will recall that no special committee of the house has sat upon and dealt with the question of the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since the spring of 1950, a year and a half ago. And even the committee of 1950 operated on a very restricted scale. At that time the Massey commission was holding its sittings, and it was thought to be inappropriate that a special committee of this house should cover ground that was already being reviewed by the royal commission. Therefore the special committee of that year dealt with certain aspects of the financial problems and operations of the corporation. It considered the purchase of the Ford hotel in Montreal, which is now the Radio-Canada building, and it made some preliminary review of the situation in regard to the regulation and development of television in Canada; but with respect to many of the great problems in relation to broadcasting in Canada, the 1950 committee felt that it should not concern itself at that time. Therefore it is most appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that at this session a special committee should be set up and invited to undertake a broad examination of policies and aims of the corporation and its whole financial structure and problems and also plans for development.
The minister has very correctly emphasized the importance of parliamentary control. It would be nothing short of calamitous if a situation were ever contemplated under which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should become subject to governmental influence or control. Under our system of broadcasting in Canada, it is fundamental that parliament and not the government must maintain control over the corporation, its policies and its activities. I assert, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of parliament to take

that responsibility seriously. I am one of those who believe that this responsibility cannot be adequately discharged by this house without the assistance, at almost every session if not indeed at every session, of a special committee to conduct an investigation and review the record of the corporation and its policies, and make a considered report to the house.
Under those conditions, Mr. Speaker, I consider it is the duty of the house to review the report of this committee. Unhappily in the past, after committees have conducted extensive investigations into these questions the reports have come into the house so late that there has often been little, and sometimes no opportunity whatever for debate or consideration by the house of the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am sounding the note here today of parliament recognizing more fully than in the past its inherent, exclusive and important responsibility with respect to broadcasting in Canada. The mere appointment of the committee will not, of itself, guarantee control by parliament. But if the members of the committee will undertake their duties with a reasonable sense of independence then I think the committee can contribute very greatly to the assertion of parliamentary control and the maintenance of a proper relationship between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and parliament. It is, unfortunately, necessary to say that there have been numerous occasions in the past when government members of the committee have not exercised that degree of independence of action which is so necessary in this matter, which is one so pre-eminently the subject of parliamentary, rather than governmental, control.
The minister has indicated that he is aware that there are criticisms today of certain programs of the corporation. It is important that the committee should weigh those criticisms, and make recommendations concerning them. Then, sir, there is another aspect of inescapable importance and urgency at the present time that has to do with the whole financial structure and outlook of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Indeed, this is an important problem at any time. It is a matter which I believe should always have concerned parliament year by year, but it is a problem of particular importance and urgency now because of the imminent departures in policy with regard to the financing of the corporation which have been proposed in the report of the Massey commission, and which the minister has indicated today are to be embraced within the bill that the government seeks to introduce.

I wish to say this, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the corporation and in fairness to its officers. On all occasions they have assured the parliamentary committee that they welcome the opportunity of making a report to a parliamentary committee. There have been some years in the past when those officers would have desired, and very properly, an opportunity of making their report to a parliamentary committee, but that parliamentary committee was not set up. Therefore, I believe we are facilitating co-operation between parliament and the corporation by proceeding to set up a committee, and I trust giving the committee an adequate scope of reference to enable it to conduct a virtually complete review of all these aspects of policy, finance and related questions.
On the financial aspect, one must recall that the corporation has shown a deficit in its operations during the past two years. In the fiscal year 1948-49 it did not show a cash deficit. It actually showed a cash surplus of $153,000, but after making allowance for depreciation and obsolescence it showed a net operating deficit of $43,000. In the fiscal year 1949-50, it showed a cash deficit of $32,000 and after adding an allowance for depreciation and obsolescence it showed a total operating deficit of $244,000. Commencing with the fiscal year 1950-51, the corporation distinguishes between sound broadcasting and television broadcasting in its annual statement of income and expenditures. This, of course, is altogether proper and desirable. It is one of the things that the Massey commission recommended. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, the corporation showed a cash deficit on sound broadcasting of $913,000. Adding an allowance for depreciation and obsolescence, it showed a total operating deficit on sound broadcasting of $1,149,000. On television broadcasting in the fiscal year ended March 31,	1951, the corporation
showed a cash deficit of $106,000. Adding an allowance for depreciation and obsolescence, it showed a total operating deficit on television broadcasting of $123,000. Adding the deficits on sound broadcasting and television broadcasting, the corporation has recorded a total operating deficit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951. of $1,272,000. The financial situation, therefore, is urgent, and it must have the immediate study of a parliamentary committee.
When the officers of the corporation were before the 1950 committee, they outlined a rather far-reaching program of expansion, the cost of which would run into many thousands of dollars. The committee considered that proposed program, and you will find it outlined briefly in the report of the Massey 94699-56
Committee on Radio Broadcasting commission. Of course, it was inevitable that rising costs should affect the operations of the corporation. These rising costs are reflected in the financial statements to which I have just referred. Television is also a matter of very great importance in shaping the plans of the corporation, and the provision that parliament may make for the needs of the corporation.
The contents of the bill outlined in the resolution which we are considering along with the motion to appoint the committee, as the minister has indicated, embrace several matters. The bill will deal with other amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which the minister has also outlined. One need not at this moment comment in detail on the proposed increase in the number of the board of governors. The Massey royal commission recommended that the number be increased with a view to wider representation on the board of governors of the corporation. Of course, the value of an enlargement of the board will depend entirely on the quality of those who are appointed by the government to the new posts; and in providing an enlargement, if that is what is eventually decided upon, I think the house will wish to make it clear to the government that the purpose of the enlargement is to secure in the board of governors a desirable widening of representation of Canadian life.
I will not take time here to comment on the proposals with respect to the pension fund, but I draw attention to the extremely important proposal in the resolution which will involve the provision of $4,750,000 during the present fiscal year by way of grants to the corporation. That sum, with the $1,500,000 which parliament provided last June by way of grant to the corporation for the present fiscal year, will bring the total grant to the corporation for this fiscal year to the sum of $6,250,000.
The resolution also proposes that, for the next succeeding four years, the same annual sum-namely $6,250,000-shall also be provided by way of grant. Hence, in the five-year period, commencing April 1, 1951, parliament is being called upon now to give its approval to the making of grants which will total $31,250,000. The resolution does not break down the amounts of the proposed annual grants into any particular categories, whether for current operations, expansion of services or the development of television. I think that the house and the committee will certainly wish to be clearly informed as to the way in which the money is to be devoted to these various objects. This indeed is a major financial program. It involves departures from the policy which has
874	HOUSE OF
Committee on Radio Broadcasting governed parliament hitherto for nearly a generation in the provisions which it has made for the needs of the corporation, and the basis upon which parliament has provided money. It therefore calls for the closest examination, and it calls for a complete understanding by parliament of what is involved, particularly in the departures in policy.
I wish next to make this observation of a general nature. I do so having regard to some political uses that have been made of discussions on the subject of the corporation and its relationship to parliament in the past. Those who, by diligent study and frequently by criticism, have sought to contribute suggestions for the betterment of the system that has been followed in the past, and for the betterment of the service rendered to the Canadian people by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are in no sense people who are trying to harm or to hinder the corporation in the attainment of its proper objectives as laid down by parliament. I think that when justice is done it will be recognized-perhaps not today but some day -that those who sought to contribute in the way I have indicated, and sometimes by criticism, to the most effective implementation by the corporation of the policies laid down by parliament, will in the last analysis be proven to have been the best friends of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and of our system of broadcasting in Canada.
So far as is reasonably possible, we want broadcasting in Canada to be Canadian in content and in expression. We want it to be the interpretation of the legitimate aspirations of the Canadian people in this important field of communication. I hope that what I have to say today, Mr. Speaker, will be considered and interpreted in relation to that general observation. I regret that it is necessary to make an observation of that kind; but it is necessary in the light of the way in which, in times past, political distortion has been perpetrated upon contributions which have been offered in the spirit of trying to bring about the betterment of the system which has been adopted by parliament as the system of broadcasting for Canada.
In considering the policies or the departures in policies that may be contemplated or involved in the proposals under debate today I think it is well that we should have regard to the policies which have prevailed hitherto. First of all, let us consider the policy with regard to finances of the corporation.
Until last June the policy of parliament with respect to the financing of the capital needs of the corporation had been defined by section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act;


and the policy laid down in that section was that provision might be made by parliament for the capital works of the corporation through loans made to the corporation by the governor in council. By that section a ceiling was put upon the advances which might be made; originally it was $500,000. It is to be observed that, until last June, it has been the policy of parliament in the field of capital requirements of the corporation that parliament, through the governor in council, should provide money by way of loan to the corporation. The loan situation, at March 31, 1951, was this. Parliament or the government had provided to the corporation by way of loan an outstanding sum of $8,400,000. That amount included $4,500,000 provided by parliament in 1949 for the development of television but not the further $1,500,000 provided by parliament at the 1951 session by way of a loan for the same purpose.
As to the current financial needs of the corporation, I have already referred to the way in which these deficits have been occurring in the last two and a half years. May I say at once that, so far as I am aware, the one occasion on which parliament has provided a loan to assist the corporation to meet its current needs was in 1950, when a loan of $650,000 was authorized by parliament to meet what was then regarded as an inevitable deficit on current operations. All through these years the scheme of financing current needs by the corporation has been, so far as parliament is concerned, to expect the corporation to look to three sources of funds in order to meet those current needs. The first source has been the $2.50 licence fee on receiving sets; and from that source the corporation last year received a total of $5,571,000. Again Mr. Speaker, I give you only round figures. The second source of funds has been commercial broadcasting; in other words, revenues received from advertising on the air, and commercial broadcasting of that nature, and the receipts from this source last year were $2,463,000. Then, the third source described generally under the term "miscellaneous" yielded $266,000, for a total income to the corporation of $8,301,000.
Broadly speaking, there have been two sources of income to the corporation, the $2.50 licence fee on receiving sets, and the income from commercial broadcasting. There have been complaints about the extent to which the corporation has entered the field of commercial broadcasting. It has been pointed out by critics that this has been an offence by the corporation against the original scheme of broadcasting, as contemplated

by the Aird commission, twenty years ago. And in the second place it has been contended that the extent to which the corporation has been going into the field of commercial broadcasting has created unfair competition for private stations in Canada which have no source of revenue in the form of licence fees, and are dependent entirely for their livelihood upon commercial broadcasting.
On the aspect of licence fees, it will be remembered that until 1947 parliament provided that only the net proceeds from the collection of the $2.50 fee on receiving sets would be paid over to the corporation. The corporation at that time was asking for an increase in income, and parliament in that year decided to provide the gross revenue from the $2.50 licence fee as income to the corporation. And from that time forward, parliament in that way has been making a grant to the current needs of the corporation.
During this present fiscal year parliament has appropriated $719,668 for that purpose. The cost of carrying out that collection has been rising constantly. Over 12 per cent of the amount collected on radio receiving sets has had to be paid out to cover the cost of collection. It has been an expensive fee to collect. In addition, there have always been very grave doubts as to the completeness of the collection of the licence fee. The Massey commission has very properly commented on that subject in these words at page 294 of the report:
If the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics are to be accepted, Canada's three and a half million private receiving sets which should be licensed ought to yield over eight and a half millions a year in licence fees instead of something over five million.
And it is because of considerations of that kind, and because also of the fact that this radio licence fee of $2.50 a year is, in essence and in fact, a nuisance tax, and very little more than that, that the Progressive Conservative party has long advocated that the radio licence fee on receiving sets should be abolished, and that whatever provision is required to meet the legitimate needs of the corporation ought to be met by parliamentary grant.
We continue to wish to see this nuisance tax abolished.


Mr. Marlin:: You should not have put it on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member who has just interrupted has been sitting on the government side for more years than most Canadians like to remember; and he has not, so far as his voice is concerned, and his voice is heard not infrequently in the house, uttered
Committee on Radio Broadcasting one syllable by way of indicating that he will do one thing or lift one finger to eliminate this nuisance imposition upon the people of Canada, one which does not bear any relationship to the benefits that people who pay it receive from radio broadcasting.
We repeat here that the Progressive Conservative party urges today, as it has long urged, that this radio licence fee on receiving sets should be abolished, and that the legitimate needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be met by parliamentary grant.
We do not wish to see any suggestions entertained to increase the fee. The chairman of the corporation put forward a suggestion-and he did it as only one suggestion respecting ways in which the needs of the corporation could be met-when, speaking before the Massey commission, he proposed that if the fee were raised to $5, the needs of the corporation could be met in that way. That proposal evoked strong public protest, and the Massey commission has very properly described that proposal in these words, as they are found at page 294 of the report:
The C.B.C.'s own proposal to raise the licence fee to $5 is generally unpopular.


An hon. Member:: Worse than that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I agree with my hon. friend; it is worse than that. And I say also that the same public disapproval of the increase in the licence on receiving sets applies also to this present nuisance tax of $2.50.
These are the policies which prevailed until last June with respect to the financing of the corporation.
In the field of control there has long been debate about the dual function of the corporation and its board of governors, the first function being that of operating a transcontinental system for network broadcasting, and the second function that of exercising control and regulation over all forms of broadcasting in Canada, including all private stations.
There are competitive features in this situation as between the corporation on the one hand and private stations on the other. The chairman of the corporation admitted without hesitation before the committee-and I look back to the evidence taken in 1946 and 1947- that to the extent that competition does exist between the private stations on the one hand and the corporation on the other, that competition has been a good thing for the corporation in helping to keep it on its toes.
The benefits of that competition have been acknowledged, so far as it has been permitted to exist. And of course it is permitted to exist, under our present system, only in so far

Committee on Radio Broadcasting as it suits the policy of the corporation to permit it. Monopoly is a great danger. It is a great danger particularly in a field of such vital importance as the field of communication. There can be no more important avenue of communication today than communication over the air waves. And let there be no misunderstanding, that when in the past proposals were discussed contemplating the possibility of a division of those functions, there never was a suggestion that there should be anything taken away or subtracted from public control of radio broadcasting in Canada. That is axiomatic, and must continue.
But the basis of suggestions of that nature that were put forward was this, that a better service could be carried out if the operating function on one hand and the regulatory function on the other could be separated, and a situation or method of control established along lines similar to those which exist in connection with the board of transport commissioners, which exercises equal control over the privately-owned Canadian Pacific Railway and the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways.
There never was at any time any suggestion that the regulation and control of broadcasting in Canada should be any other than the function of a publicly appointed body, operating as a board and in the public interest.
Then, so far as television is concerned-and that is the third of the matters on which policy is so important-one should, I think, make this observation. Television is of unparalleled importance in Canada. There is no broadcasting of television in Canada today because it has been the policy of the corporation and of this government, up until the present at any rate, that there should be no development by private sources even operating under public control and within the strict limits of public control laid down by the corporation. It has been the policy of the corporation and of the government that there should be a total prohibition of any form of development of television in Canada by private sources. The result is that Canada has no television today. The only television available in Canada is what comes over the border from United States sources and is available to cities and communities close to the border. This paternalistic attitude on the part of the corporation and the government I have deplored and still deplore because I think it has deprived Canada of development in an important field to which Canadian engineers and talent could have contributed greatly.
This may be water under the bridge, but it is a deplorable fact that it is water under the bridge and that precious time has been

lost. The corporation has been slow in the field of development of television. In fairness one should say that in earlier years-perhaps not in the last two or three-they have said that they did not have the funds required to develop television. Nevertheless it is a legitimate ground of criticism of the management of the corporation, or of the policy of the corporation and the government, that there has been an effective throttle applied on the development of television in Canada. That deplorable attitude-that restricted, dog-in-the-manger attitude has retarded development in Canada.
The corporation has undertaken some development work in this field, particularly during the past couple of years. Funds have been provided for this purpose and it was expected by the corporation that it would commence the broadcasting of television in Montreal and Toronto on September 1 of this present year. That has not been possible and it now appears that we will not have the broadcasting of television by the corporation until next spring. Before I leave this review of the past policy and record of the government I think I should mention that there never has been any suggestion, when proposals were put forward, that the corporation should forbear from exercising proper control not only over the decision as to those to whom licences might be granted but over their operations when granted, even if private interests were permitted to risk some of their own money in the development of television. There never was any suggestion at any time that that should be undertaken apart from control by the regulatory body established by parliament which up until the present has been the corporation itself.
There are many criticisms one could make of the television that comes across the border to Canadian communities near the United States boundary. There is too much commercialism in it. I hope that when television is introduced in Canada we will have a better brand than we see on many programs now piped over the border. But to say that is in no measure to condone the delay there has been in the development of television in Canada, either by the corporation or by private interests, operating under control and supervision exercised through the regulatory body established by parliament for the purpose.
In June last there was a departure in policy so far as finance was concerned. In the dying moments of the session, about ten days after the introduction of the report of the Massey commission in the house, the government

introduced item 670 in the supplementary estimates which invited parliament to appropriate the sum of $1,500,000:
To provide for an interim grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pending amendment of the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
That was a major departure in policy. Never before had there been a grant by parliament to the corporation. Having regard to the fact that this grant was made pending an amendment to the act some of us took the ground, when the matter came up on the second to the last day of the session, that there should not be a departure in policy until there had been a review of the whole subject and of the recommendations of the Massey commission by a special committee of the house, and by the house itself. Our views were overruled in the house and this step was taken without any attempt at a review of the important recommendations of the Massey commission.
We pointed out at the time that this was not the proper procedure to follow because with a fall session coming on-we had just been told that there would be a fall session- parliament could decide what would be necessary either to supplement the revenues of the corporation or to provide for the whole fiscal year. I might remind the house that the minister, as reported on page 4925 of Hansard, stated that the government had not yet had time to study the report of the royal commission. Yet in that haphazard, slap-dash manner on the second to the last day of the session parliament embarked on an important departure in policy.
We are faced today with the question of this important departure in policy. I say that this is the time we should be faced with it because we have had an opportunity to study it. We have had an opportunity to consider the contents of the report of the Massey royal commission. Having received it within the past week, we have also had an opportunity to consider the report of the corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, which we did not have last session. We have had an opportunity to consider the developments of this major departure in policy and the extent to which parliament should go in that direction. We did not have that information and we were not in that position last June.
I think it would be doing much less than justice to the importance of the Massey report if I did not say something concerning it at this juncture. I do not want to prolong these remarks nor do I want to duplicate what I trust has been the work of all members of this house in studying this report, but there are some highlights that have a
Committee on Radio Broadcasting direct bearing upon this important question to which I have alluded and the matters of policy involved in the resolution under discussion at the moment.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I say that I felt that when the minister spoke on this subject on June 29 last he did not do justice to what I thought of the importance of the commission itself and of its report. I consider that the work undertaken by that commission was of the highest importance. I recognize the eminence in their respective fields of the members of that important royal commission. I know several of them personally and I would be the last person to question their high standing in the fields in which their endeavours have lain. Their report is a formidable and weighty document which is entitled to the most serious consideration and respect on the part of all members of the house. It is significant that this report has evoked very widespread public interest. So far as the debate today is concerned, it obviously can relate to only one branch of the study undertaken by the royal commission and actually only one chapter of their report, namely, chapter 18 in which the commission reviews the questions of radio broadcasting and television and makes its report with respect thereto.
It will be borne in mind that the report contained in chapter 18 is a majority one subscribed to by four members of the commission and expressly dissented from by Dr. Arthur Surveyer, a very eminent engineer, who wrote a minority report and has given us therein the assistance of his well considered views described as his "reservations and observations", which likewise are entitled to serious consideration and the greatest respect on the part of all members of the house. Let us bear in mind also that as an eminent engineer Dr. Surveyer is perhaps better qualified to speak of the technical problems of radio broadcasting and television than other members of the commission.
Now, sir, what is to be said concerning the report of the Massey royal commission dealing with it under these several important heads of control of radio broadcasting, internal affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, finance and television? I shall be as brief as I can in indicating what I deem to be the important highlights and their relationship to the subject under discussion today.
In the first place-and for our purpose this is among the most important of the recommendations-the majority have recommended that the present system of control of broadcasting in Canada should be continued.

Committee on Radio Broadcasting Unlike Dr. Surveyer, the majority recommended the continuance of the present system under which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, through its board of governors, not only conducts broadcasting but also regulates and controls all forms of broadcasting in Canada.
There is a salutary and I think important recommendation by the majority that an appeal should be provided at the instance of those who consider themselves aggrieved by the corporation in what amounts to a substantial miscarriage of justice, and that they should be allowed to appeal from a decision of the board of governors to a federal court. The minister has indicated that the bill will propose that that appeal will lie to the exchequer court. We trust that when we see the bill we will not find the terms of appeal too narrow or restricted.
As to the tenure of wavelengths by licensees of those wavelengths, the majority of the royal commission have recommended that the term of the licence should be extended from three years to five years in the interest of the development of policy and operations on the part of those engaged in private broadcasting.
Second, the report contains some interesting and noteworthy recommendations as to the management by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of its own operations and affairs. It is recommended by the majority that the corporation should refuse all local commercial business for those stations which it operates directly, except in places where advertising service from private stations is not available. Again, at page 291 it is recommended that the board of governors should refuse all commercial programs not acceptable in content and that they consider the possibility of eliminating some of the less desirable commercial programs now carried and of replacing them by programs more appropriate to Canadian listeners. At page 292 it is recommended that the corporation make a careful study of its own bylaws and regulations with a view to rescinding or amending those no longer applicable to existing radio broadcasting conditions. I think that will interest the parliamentary committee when it sits.
Again, there is a matter that has greatly concerned some of us who have sat as members of the radio committee in recent years. It is the very broad powers reserved to the corporation with respect to facsimile broadcasting. This is a field in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, if it chose to exercise the powers that it possesses under the Canadian Broadcasting Act today, could enter into the most direct competition with
every newspaper in Canada on such terms that it could make it very difficult for almost every Canadian newspaper to compete with it. That problem has been recognized very properly by the majority of the royal commission, and on page 293 we find this recommendation:
That in any development of newspaper facsimile broadcasting in Canada, government control be limited to the technical control necessary to ensure that broadcasting channels for this purpose are equitably and efficiently assigned.
In my submission it will continue to be the duty of every member of this house to see that sufficient restrictions are imposed by parliament upon the almost unlimited powers of the board of governors under this act so that the threat shall not be held, directly or indirectly, over the newspapers of Canada of the corporation, if it chooses to exercise these wide powers, entering into competition with them on terms that would be beyond the power of practically all Canadian newspapers to meet.
As to the programs of the corporation, the royal commission has made a number of recommendations. They are found at pages 297 to 299, but time does not permit me to review them. I think they are matters, however, that should engage the attention of the parliamentary committee when it sits.
I come now to the important question of finance because here the royal commission, while it has dealt in a rather terse manner with this subject, has nevertheless made recommendations of far-reaching importance. The problem of the corporation is described in these terms by the royal commission at page 293:
The C.B.C. has stated that in order to maintain services even at their present level it requires about $3 million a year in addition to its current income of approximately $7,500,000. For the improvement and extension of its services, it requires another $2,200,000, making a total annual budget of about $12,700,000. If all the local and the less desirable national commercial programs are dropped, the corporation will require an additional $1,500,000-some $14,200,000 in all.
It will not have escaped the attention of the house, I am sure, that the figure proposed in the resolution with respect to the amount to be voted to the corporation annually for a period of five years, namely, $6,250,000 per annum, will bring the income of the corporation up to the figure of $14,200,000 named in the report. Let us remember, sir, that that figure, if we approach this on the basis of fulfilling the recommendation of the royal commission, contemplates that the C.B.C. shall step out of the field of commercial broadcasting in at least the fields indicated by the royal commission in the recommendations which I read a moment ago. And that will involve a surrender on the part of the

corporation of revenue amounting at the present time to about $1,500,000 per annum. If parliament is to be asked to vote this substantial sum of money, $6,250,000 per annum for either a one-year or a five-year period, then we shall wish to be assured that it is on the basis that the content of the corporation's programs is to be improved by the elimination of these commercial and advertising features.
The majority of the commission has summed up its view in these words on page
294	of the report:
We see no solution to the financial problem of the C.B.C. except in additional support from public funds.
Sir, we of the Progressive Conservative party, bearing in mind we have advocated the abolition of that $2.50 licence fee on receiving sets, of course accept the position that it is to parliament and to parliamentary grants that the corporation should look for the revenues legitimately needed to carry on its proper operations. I take note, of course, Mr. Speaker, of the recommendation on page
295	that parliament should provide a grant for a period of five years, because I am coming back to that in my closing observations. It seems to me there is an aspect there that is worthy of serious consideration.
In regard to television, sir, the majority has recommended in effect that the present system of control should be continued. I shall have something further to say about that in a moment; but I do note that even the majority did recommend on page 305 of the report that there should be a further review of this whole question of television broadcasting in Canada three years after the commencement of regular Canadian television broadcasting.
The minority report, sir, is worthy of special mention in respect to this motion. I have said something about the competence of the author, Dr. Arthur Surveyer. Dr. Surveyer, in his minority report, at page 386 has drawn attention to the importance of the broadcasting carried on in Canada over private stations. In section 8 of his report at page 386 we read:
There is a tendency on the part of the general public to minimize the importance of the private stations within the national broadcasting system. There are at present 150 broadcasting stations in Canada; 15 are owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and 135, or 90 per cent of the total, are privately owned. The three Canadian Broadcasting Corporation networks consist of 14 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations and 68 community station affiliates, plus about 20 supplementary affiliates. The total national broadcasting system therefore consists of 102 stations, nearly 86 per cent of which are privately-owned.
That is a factor that I think is very often overlooked by those who tend to deal in general glosses and in sweeping general state-
Committee on Radio Broadcasting ments about the subject of transcontinental broadcasting. Dr. Surveyer has recommended that the control functions and the operating functions of the corporation should be separated from one another, and he has recommended that the board of governors should be reduced from its present number to a board of four, consisting of the chairman, and three directors, and that that board should carry on the function of broadcasting, the operating function of the corporation. That is more particularly set out in his report, but I do not take the time to refer in greater detail to it. He then recommends that there should be established a separate board, a publicly appointed board, operating in the public interest to discharge the duties at the present time discharged by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the control and regulation of broadcasting in general in Canada. He proposes that that board should consist of five directors, and should be called the Canadian broadcasting and television control board.
Sir, it should be within the function of the special committee of the house now proposed to be appointed to examine into that question and to weigh it with due regard for its own intrinsic merits as well as the importance of the subject in relation to which the recommendations are offered. That committee should be entitled to go into the whole subject of control.
On the second question in relation to finance, Dr. Surveyer has made some important observations, from which I have chosen just three brief ones, the first to be found at page 399 and the second two on page 400 of the report. In the first he says:
There is no doubt-
And here he is speaking of the recommendation of the majority that by parliamentary grant the total annual income of the corporation should be increased to a sum of $14,200,000. I continue:
There is no doubt that the Canadian. Broadcasting Corporation should be granted whatever amounts are needed to maintain an adequate service both in broadcasting and telecasting for the purpose of fulfilling the aims of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. Although the expenditures of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appear reasonable when compared with those of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the commission does not know whether or not the operations of the corporation are efficient, nor if substantial savings could not be realized by entrusting the production of commercial programs to private producers.
I say to the house, sir, that that is a subject on which the house committee, if it does its duty, ought to make diligent inquiry. The second extract is this:
The estimated amount of $14,200,000 is certainly expendable and it is doubtful if anybody can offer a reliable estimate of the probable requirements of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the next
880	HOUSE OF
Committee on Radio Broadcasting
three or five years. The replacing of some of the American programs by Canadian programs, although desirable, will be difficult and expensive.
And then in the third extract, in indicating his general agreement with two of the recommendations of the majority, he adds:
I doubt if the population of Canada will grow rapidly enough to keep up with the increase in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's yearly expenditures. Eventually, either the licence fee will have to be increased or the statutory grant raised, unless substantial savings can be realized.
Sir, into all these questions, the needs of income and the possibility of effecting savings, diligent inquiry ought to be made by this parliamentary committee. Without going at this moment in greater detail into the views expressed by Dr. Surveyer in relation to the field of broadcasting, I feel that I must come now to my concluding remarks.
I hope, sir, that there will be the broadest study undertaken by the committee; that there will be no limitations within the range of those views expressed both by the majority and the minority reports of the Massey commission on the scope of the inquiry to be conducted by the committee. I want to see the committee examine all aspects of policy of the corporation and to conduct a diligent inquiry into the finances of the corporation so as to determine carefully the legitimate needs of the corporation. I do urge, Mr. Speaker, that parliament should assume a special responsibility in this vitally important field of broadcasting, and maintain the closest possible contact at all times with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its operations, its policies and its functions. In no other way can we assure the maintenance of parliamentary control and the elimination of any attempts at governmental control over the corporation. Also in fairness to the board of governors and those who are responsible for the maintenance and operation of the corporation, let us assure that they will know what parliamentary policy is and that they will have the full assistance of the views of parliament in shaping their course.
In considering the importance of maintaining parliamentary control, I come lastly to this question whether parliament should be invited to commit itself for a period of five years to grants of $6,250,000 per annum, involving as that does important departures from the policies that have guided parliament and the corporation heretofore in their relationships with one another. In my submission it will not be possible to maintain that close association between parliament and the corporation which is so vitally necessary, if no opportunity is provided each year for parliament to review the policies of the corporation and decide whether, in the light of these policies, the parliamentary grants


should be made. Let us bear in mind that if the bill takes the form adumbrated in the resolution now under discussion, parliament will be enacting a measure under which no opportunity will be provided during the next four years for considering whether it ought to provide $6,250,000 per year. The nature of this legislation is such that parliament commits itself now for a period of five years. There will be no occasion, therefore, for the government to come each year during the five-year period to ask the house to vote a sum of money as an annual appropriation for this purpose. I consider that to be wrong in principle. I consider it to be not only desirable in. the interests of a healthy relationship between the corporation and parliament, but also needful in order to keep parliament in close contact with broadcasting policies, that parliament should be invited year by year to make that grant.
I am not unmindful, sir, of the fact that the corporation desires to prepare for its expansion and other schemes with due opportunity for planning them in advance. I hope the corporation and the board of governors will give the members of this house credit for enough goodwill towards them, and enough intelligence in connection with these matters, to be sure that we will have regard year by year within this five-year period, or any other period, to the necessity of enabling the corporation to make adequate plans for whatever expansion of its services may be required and-let us never forget this-as may be approved by parliament. I would deplore parliament taking such action on this measure as will put it beyond the power of parliament for a period of five years to conduct an annual review of the policies and financial position of this corporation. I believe that would be a departure to be deplored by all who desire to see parliamentary control over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation preserved.
It seems to me there ought to be a sum introduced in the estimates annually to provide an opportunity for discussion in parliament and for review by a parliamentary committee. For the first time that I can recall we had an example in the 1950 session, when estimates were actually referred by the house to the special committee on radio broadcasting. There were only two items, and they concerned international shortwave broadcasting; nevertheless it gave the committee an opportunity of conducting a detailed analysis and scrutiny of the proposed expenditures under those two items. If we are going to come to substantial items like $6,250,000 per annum for a period of five years or perhaps longer, then I believe it is the immediate

duty of parliament to ensure that that be done in such a way that parliament will have an opportunity for annual discussion, and that a committee of this house will be appointed annually to make a detailed review of the proposed expenditures.
I say that we want to see an adequate definition of how any money to be provided by parliament is to be expended by the corporation. We want to see that parliamentary control is maintained without any restrictions. We will not accomplish that unless each year an item is provided in the estimates for this purpose. The mere appointment of a parliamentary committee will not guarantee it, because I remind you, sir, that it has been our experience in the past that the committee has not reported until the dying days of the session. Then no opportunity has been provided by the government for a discussion of the report of that committee. If an item is put in the estimates each year that will guarantee to parliament the right to review the policies of the corporation, measure and weigh its requests for further appropriations, parliamentary control will be preserved for the good of parliament, for the good of Canada, and for the good of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: would say immediately, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr Fleming) that an opportunity should be given this parliament every year to review the work and activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not think there is any question but that all hon. members in this house want to see the corporation remain responsible to parliament, and be subject to parliamentary control.
It is not often that one can look back over the years and pay something of a tribute to those who have preceded us in this house, particularly those with whom we have violently disagreed. My mind goes back today to the origin of our public broadcasting system; to the Aird commission on which so many distinguished citizens served, some of whom have passed away. It is interesting to look up the records and see the concept that was in the mind of the parliament of Canada and of the government of that day, as to what should be the purpose and function of a Canadian broadcasting system. The resolution which preceded the setting up of the publicly owned system was a simple one. It was moved by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and stated:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the constitution of a commission to be known as the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, for the purpose of acquiring, operating, regulating and controlling radio broadcasting in Canada.
Committee on Radio Broadcasting
The motion was agreed to. I wish today that all hon. members would read the speech made by Mr. Bennett on that occasion. It is found on pages 3035, 3036, and 3037 of Hansard for May 18, 1932, and I shall quote from it. This speech was made on second reading of Bill No. 94, and Mr. Bennett said:
Secondly, no other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting. Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas.
This is not a correctable fault in private ownership; it is an inescapable and inherent demerit of that system. It does not seem right that in Canada the towns should be preferred to the countryside or the prosperous communities to those less fortunate. In fact, if no other course were possible, it might be fair to suggest that it should be the other way about. Happily, however, under this system, there is no need for discrimination; all may be served alike. Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada.
Then skipping a few words, we find this:
The use of the air, or the air itself, whatever you may please to call it, that lies over the soil or land of Canada is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction under the recent decision of the privy council. I believe that there is no government in Canada that does not regret today that it has parted with some of these natural resources for considerations wholly inadequate and on terms that do not reflect the principle under which the crown holds the natural resources in trust for all the people . . . Then there follows, of course, the provision for the commission expropriating stations when it is in a position financially so to do, with the limitations to which I have referred, and those expropriations will be made at such time and under such circumstances as will enable the commission to discharge its duties without incurring large financial obligations.
Those were the views expressed by the leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Conservative government. We have departed far from that today. The argument which was advanced this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was that since 86 per cent of all the stations in Canada are owned and operated by private interests, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be set aside as the regulatory power and some other body should be set up to judge between the C.B.C. and the private stations which Mr. Bennett said would have to be expropriated and eliminated, that is, the 86 per cent of the private stations that now remain in operation in Canada.
I recollect distinctly, because on that occasion I was in the house, on June 15, 1936, when the new Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was to replace the old commission, Mr. Bennett expressed some misgivings about the matter. He feared this would mean that more licences were to be given to private stations. He feared that the control of broadcasting would slip from the hands of the

Committee on Radio Broadcasting Canadian people; and he stated his position in words which I am also going to put on the record. As reported at page 3710 of Hansard of June 15, 1936, he said this:
We know-it is not merely guessing-that very large numbers of people are constantly seeking licences for broadcasting stations. If the political department-
It was proposed that the licences should now be placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.
-I use the word in its broad sense-is to deal with these applications, an inevitable result will follow. Hon. members of this committee must know that applications were refused by the commission, because part of the basis of the complaints against the commission was that it would not continue to grant licences. All you have to do is grant enough licences and you destroy the public character of Canadian broadcasting. At the moment we have secured the ownership of this facility, or utility, or whatever you may call it, in the people of Canada, and we have ensured it against destruction by private interests, but the private interests have been very vigilant.
Have we not seen that over the years in the house and in the radio committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have seen it today.


Major James William Coldwell: To continue:
They have been watchful in their own interests and have determined that if it is within their power, this faciliity is not to function as a public enterprise. They have determined fairly and legitimately, so far as that is concerned, to destroy this publicly owned facility. Their idea is that it should be in the hands of private enterprise. The two or three great enterprises across the line have watched with increasing anxiety the operations of this publicly owned facility.
May I just say that that operation is still watched by the same corporations in the United States but more particularly, Mr. Speaker, by many people adjacent to the Canadian border in the United States. I have met many of them as far south as Connecticut, right across through the states of New York and Massachusetts, who listen to our Canadian broadcasts. They tell me that the news service is more objective. They tell me that our programs are better conceived and that they are devoid of objectionable and constant advertising. The people who live along our border and who listen in, particularly those who are interested in this kind of thing-in the good things, and the better things of life, perhaps-are exceedingly complimentary to the Canadian broadcasting system. I continue to quote:
They do not desire that their privately owned enterprises should be regarded merely as tentative experiments; they wish to continue as a privately owned enterprise and) not be merged in a publicly owned and controlled broadcasting system such as we have in this country.
I point this out because if broadcasting in Canada is to be in the hands of a corporation, and that is what the report of the committee recommends, then you will have to ensure its continuance and life.


If a department of government is to determine whether or not additional licences shall be issued for private stations, I say again that will mean the end of our publicly owned radio broadcasting facilities.
Those are not my words.


Mr. Pouliol:: Will the hon. member permit me to interpose a remark?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to point out that the remarks he has quoted were not a speech but rather a sermon.


Mr. Maclnnis:: It was a good sermon
anyway.


Major James William Coldwell: I have quoted those remarks because I believe that because they were said in the house they are worth putting on the record today when we are considering the resolutions moved by the minister which visualize the strengthening of our system of public broadcasting. It is because we think that the proposals made by the minister will strengthen this great instrument of public education and public information in this country that we are happy indeed to welcome them; and we shall be glad to review them carefully when they are in committee.
I want to say that in my opinion the Massey report is an excellent one in every respect, but perhaps more particularly-at least from the point of view of the matter we are discussing today-in connection with radio broadcasting. It confirms the opinion many people in Canada have held, backed by evidence, that our people generally want publicly controlled broadcasting under a distinctly Canadian public authority and system. Of course this was evident in the submissions that were made to the Massey commission by nation-wide organizations such as the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, both congresses of labour and so on. As a matter of fact, at page 28, the Massey report quotes the Canadian Congress of Labour:
Without public radio in Canada we would have "a carbon copy of the American system and a carbon copy made in the United States at that" said the Canadian Congress of Labour . . .
-which is even more important. Of course the report notes, and quite properly, the difficulties in a country of this description where we have two official languages, six time zones and a population scattered over a wide area of territory.
As I have already quoted, when the first plan was placed before the house Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had that very much in mind. May I also add-perhaps I should have said it before-that the expressions of opinion

at that time by the then leader of the government were echoed by Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and others who occupied seats in the official opposition of that day.
The report says, and I think correctly:
The Canadian national broadcasting system is the result of ingenious improvisation to provide speedily an extensive service in a country where adequate coverage is perhaps the most expensive and the most difficult in the world.
That is taken from page 27 of the commission's report. I believe to a very great extent the present broadcasting system in Canada does carry out in large measure the intentions expressed in the Aird report which was presented in 1929. The report states that this view was confirmed by many of the delegations and individuals appearing before the commission and continues in these words:
Three statements were made repeatedly. First, national programs have been received with appreciation throughout the country . . . Second, the existence of the nationally-controlled system of broadcasting was acknowledged as the only means whereby Canadian radio could have maintained a Canadian character . . . Third, the national system . . . has contributed powerfully, ... to a sense of Canadian unity. It does much to promote a knowledge and understanding of Canada as a whole, and of every Canadian region, and therefore aids in the development of a truly Canadian cultural life.
And, of course, because of the peculiar difficulties in this country in any event, whether that was desirable or undesirable it could not have developed along purely commercial lines as it has done in the United States, because it was not commercially profitable to give network service to scattered areas. Hence if it had developed along commercial lines it would have been cheaper to import United States programs, through being outlets for their broadcasting systems, or by transcription recordings, and consequently we would have been subjected to United States programs to a far greater extent that we are today.
Experience in the United States shows that commercialism does upset the kind of balance in programs that it was wished to maintain in Canada. As a matter of fact in the United States there is very little interest in minority groups throughout the country. We have given a great deal of attention to the rights of minorities within the Canadian broadcasting system, and quite properly so. Radio time in the United States is more a matter of entertainment, and less one of educational facility.
I was interested to read something in the Beveridge report presented to the parliament at Westminster. In Great Britain they have had the B.B.C., the British Broadcasting Corporation, for a longer period than we have had the C.B.C. It was very thoroughly and
Committee on Radio Broadcasting carefully investigated in 1949. I believe the report was submitted some time last year. The Beveridge committee, speaking of the
B.	B.C., had this to say:
The broadcasting authority in allotting opportunity for ventilation of controversial views should not be guided, whether by simple calculation of the numbers who hold such views or by fear of giving offence to particular groups of listeners.
And it goes on to say this:
Listeners should understand that while the B.B.C. must be impartial in admitting controversy to the microphone, this does not mean that every talk must be impartial.
In other words they laid down as a fundamental principle, which I hope our own
C.	B.C. will continue to follow-as I believe they have to a very great extent in the past -that of continuing freedom of discussion, even of views unpalatable to many. I have heard programs over the C.B.C., statements made in discussions, with which I did not agree and could have criticized most vehemently. But I think it would be a terrible mistake to treat the Canadian people like children and, because certain views expressed on the radio are unpalatable and disliked by majorities in the country, order that they should not be allowed to be expressed. I listen to broadcasts that are under critical discussion, and disagree with much that is in them. I refer, for example, to those of Dr. Hoyle, Bertrand Russell, and others. I have listened with equal attention to the very fine broadcasts by dignitaries of the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church and the United church. Indeed, I believe four of the most interesting broadcasts to which I have listened for a long time were given over the "Sunday evening hour" within the last month or six weeks. Taking part were a Roman Catholic priest, an Anglican clergyman, a Baptist, I believe, and a Congregationalist, all speaking of the development of Christian thought.
If we are to have the kind of broadcasting system we should have, then I believe there should be an opportunity for the presentation of all views, provided of course that they are stated in a proper and decent manner and without abusing those who disagree with them. I believe that is the manner in which a democratic country should conduct its business. Anything less than that is not democratic.
I confess that I have letters on my desk upstairs objecting to some of the broadcasts I have mentioned and with which I may disagree. I do think, however, that views expressed over the C.B.C. should be those held by authoritative persons. And if we cannot refute those views, then there is something wrong with those of us who hold

Committee on Radio Broadcasting views differing from the ones expressed. I say then that we must safeguard carefully the right of free speech in a democratic country.
I want now to say something about the position of the local station in our broadcasting system. I agree with what has been said in the Massey report, that local stations do perform a valuable service to the community. I would not wish to see them eliminated. But if they are to do the kind of job they should do for the community, then I say they should endeavour to give opportunities for local talent to develop in their communities. The Massey report criticizes some of the private stations very sharply indeed because they have neglected to do that.
Moreover, the Massey report refutes the idea that private stations have any inherent right to the broadcasting channels. Mr. Bennett pointed that out on several occasions, and it has been pointed out also by others who have spoken in this house, including the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). They have no inherent right to use the airways. They are public property, and we grant those airways as a trust to the people who use them. The Massey report points out that the programs offered by some of these stations are often very regrettable. They sampled five private stations and at page 39 of the report they have this to say:
There is no apparent attempt to fulfil the proper function of the local station as we understand it: to reflect the life and interests of the community, and to use and develop the local talent available.
And at page 40:
After a careful consideration of the evidence available, we are convinced that only very rarely can limited revenue be advanced as an extenuating circumstance for this inexpensive and unimaginative programming.
May I say also that the report criticizes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in that respect because the corporation has both the authority and the obligation under the statute to see to it that stations granted monopolies of airways fulfil the functions that are expected of them. I know when I sat on the committee several years ago I asked for the logs of several stations across Canada. Most of those stations completely violated the idea that lay behind the granting of licences, in that they neglected to use local talent and spent far too much time on advertising. The Aird commission recommended that no more than 5 per cent of broadcasting time should be devoted to advertising, yet when I turn on my radio to a station not far from where I am standing at the moment I find all sorts of advertising interrupting the programs coming over the air.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Actually it is the program interrupting the advertising.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be putting it a little better; that certainly may be anot. -way of putting it. It is the duty of the corporation to see that that is not so. The corporation has not carried out its duty in that respect. It should do so if it expects to have the support of this house in voting large grants of money to the corporation. The report stated:
Some local stations do meet a need in providing local advertising, local news and other community services.
And then at page 40:
-the C.B.C. is in general performing its duty satisfactorily, sometimes even admirably, in providing appropriate and varied programs less admirably does it exercise its responsibilities of control.
As I have said already, this failure must be noted by the board of governors and remedied. I think perhaps the commission might have said more about the concentration of ownership and control of radio stations in this country. I do not think it is healthy that one group of individuals should control four, five, six or even more stations like the Thomson group in Ontario, which also controls many local newspapers. One of the menaces to freedom of speech and freedom of news and all the rest of it is the concentration of control over news services and facilities. It is noted in the report that forty-one stations are owned in whole or in part by newspaper interests.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) suggested that facsimile broadcasting should be most carefully controlled as it might compete with newspapers. I am always interested in hearing persons who believe so completely in free enterprise indicate how anxious they are to prevent competition with facilities of which they approve and sometimes-of course I am not saying this of the hon. member for Eglinton-in which they are directly interested. The concentration of the ownership of newspapers and radio stations means that the traditional freedom of the press is losing much of its meaning these days. The report states:
The most important function of private stations, however, is that they serve as regular or occasional outlets for national programs, thus giving to the national system a coverage which could not otherwise be achieved except at great public expense.
In other words the private stations can be separate, yet complementary to and to a degree in competition with the national system. We found in days gone by that when stations were not affiliated with the C.B.C. they complained. Why? Because they found it a profitable thing to be affiliated with one


Stanley Howard Knowles: They should be washed out.


Major James William Coldwell: Washed out, yes. People who go over to the United States tell us that soap is less expensive there than in our own country. Of course they have more advertising over there, but they have a larger population. I do not know how much is put into these soap operas except that six or seven years ago I saw a report in a United States consumers pamphlet to the effect that the soap companies were paying $30 million a year to the various broadcasting stations in that country for the advertising of soap and soap products. I do not know what they are paying now, but I should say it is much more. Much of the advertising is just unqualified falsehood. You have the same company advertising three or four different brands of soap and telling you that each one is better than all the rest of them. They cannot all be telling the truth.


Mr. Low:: Each washes whiter than the one before.

Committee on Radio Broadcasting


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I said at the outset that some of our broadcasts are listened to with a good deal of appreciation. I have criticized commercial programs, but there are some good ones. I should like to pay tribute to one among others which I enjoy every Sunday evening in the winter when I am at home, "Singing Stars of Tomorrow". I think the several companies that have been responsible for that program should be congratulated. While I criticize many commercial programs there are some-and this is one of them-[DOT] that perform a very useful service to the Canadian people. Since I am critical of advertising programs, I want to say that there is a minimum of advertising on that program. Then there are the Wednesday night programs, the "Stage" programs which are now rebroadcast in the United States by one of their companies, and so on.
I noticed that the commission was critical of talks, but it is interesting to note that more than half of the seventeen talks listed on page 29 of the report were commended. I believe the corporation is performing a very useful function in encouraging Canadian composers, writers and singers to give of their talents to the people of Canada in the opera from Toronto, the various symphonies in different parts of Canada and the drama. I think that Canada is well served in these respects.
I have already exceeded my time, and while there were other matters with which I wanted to deal, I shall only say a word about television. I agree with the recommendation at page 303 of the report, which reads:
That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs and that all private stations be required to serve as outlets for national programs.
I think that is fundamental to anything we do in television. We must keep this great facility as a public utility and not allow it to be prostituted by private interests in the manner in which it is being prostituted in the United States. Therefore I am glad to see the committee appointed. I think the radio committee has performed a useful function in the past, and I am sure the committee now proposed will do so in the future. I have pleasure in supporting the setting up of the committee.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the minister who introduced the resolutions would feel that he would like an expression of views on them from all groups in the house. It is for that reason I feel that I should speak for a few minutes this afternoon with respect

to the two resolutions that have been proposed by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I cannot claim to be an expert on radio. I listen once in a while when I get time. I enjoy the news very much, and I think I might say here that the way the C.B.C. handles news broadcasts is most commendable. I have never had anything but the highest respect for these broadcasts. They are never slanted in any particular direction. I think they are factual and objective, and I want to pay a tribute to those who gather and broadcast the news regularly. I find that perhaps the most enjoyable part of my radio experience is tuning in on the news.
I cannot say the same about commentators. I shall have something to say about that matter a little later on. As I say, I am not an expert but I feel it is important that someone from my group should express an opinion with regard to the two resolutions and the Massey commission report. I have read, indexed and tried to digest the Massey commission report. I have enjoyed it. I think it is a document that will prove to be exceedingly useful to the Canadian people for many years to come. It contains a great many things with which I find myself in agreement. Other things are still open to debate in my mind. Perhaps as the days go by I will come to appreciate the views of the majority more. If so, very well.
In appraising the value of the report of the Massey commission I have tried to consider the views of the minority report that were submitted by Dr. Surveyer, along with the views of the majority. I just want to say that much about the report in general before I go on to discuss the two resolutions before the house. I am glad the minister has seen fit to set up a committee this session to examine into all these matters pertaining to the policies being followed by the C.B.C., their finances, and all these things that are relative thereto. I hope the committee will dig into all the questions that have been raised here this afternoon by speakers who have preceded me, and indeed by the minister. When he spoke he named quite a number of different and important subjects which would be considered. I hope the committee will dig right into them. I should like to say just a word about some of the chief headings that were dealt with by the minister.
In the first place, I think the minister mentioned the matter of freedom of speech. I think he had in mind what I have in mind; I will not say the great number, but at least the substantial number of criticisms one hears as he goes about the country and talks to people who are real fans, people who live in homes where they have the radio on most

of the time, or in hospitals or in homes for incurables or aged people. Their views are pretty sound as a rule. Well, I hear criticisms, as doubtless the minister hears criticisms, about various phases of C.B.C. policy. I am sure he must have in mind some of these when he spoke about the committee digging into the whole question of to what extent the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does adhere to the principle of free speech. I have heard complaints from widely scattered parts of Canada with regard to the red and pink propaganda that does find its way over our air waves. My own opinion-formed, I must say and admit, from a limited experience in listening to them-is that the roster of C.B.C. commentators has been for some years quite heavily weighted toward the left. That is what one hears pretty well over the country. The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) mentioned something of that in his speech the other day. He put his finger right on what is considered to be, in the west at any rate, one of the great criticisms of the C.B.C. Pretty generally over the years the news commentators have somehow been selected so they have been weighted pretty much to the left.
Let me express what we believe about freedom of speech. I believe that any body like the C.B.C. is adhering closely to the principle of freedom of speech in this country when they make certain that all sides of the question are given public hearing; but they are not adhering to the principle of freedom of speech when the commentators, and so on, are weighted heavily on one side. We have no objection-I personally have no objection- to giving any man an opportunity to express his views. I do not think it is going to hurt the Canadian people to hear those views; but one thing I do object to, Mr. Speaker, is the continual pounding, pounding, pounding of indoctrination, in an attempt to sway the opinions of our people; in fact to mould them into a cast. I am just afraid that has been all too frequent in our experience with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It may be that the present management and board of governors are doing something about it; I hope so. But they must understand how difficult it is for the people in any community to exercise the slightest control over such commentators, over such propaganda, because they are too far away. It is not as if they could impose pressure upon their local station.
I can quite appreciate what the people of the Peace River would do if, for instance, a man like-and I speak of him with all respect-Dr. Brock Chisholm should attempt to impose what I would call his poisonous mind upon those people over radio station
Committee on Radio Broadcasting CFGB. The people in the Peace River country would mighty soon put the pressure on CFGB and make certain that somebody got on the air to answer Brock Chisholm and put the matter right to the people of that community. By that method they could exercise a certain amount of local control over the kind of thing they get over their stations, Mr. Speaker, which they cannot exercise now because of the gross centralization of power in the C.B.C. It is that sort of thing the people in many sections of Canada deeply resent about the C.B.C., that they have nothing whatever to say about policy except as when expressed every now and again-and it is not too often-through their representatives in parliament, when some occasion makes it possible for them to air their views, as we are doing today. But that does not in any way change the policy of the C.B.C. The only way by which the policy can be changed is to have a committee called, such as we are calling now, to get down into a deep and careful study of the whole question and bring in recommendations. But that in turn, Mr. Speaker, depends on how willing the majority party in this house is to bring in recommendations. That is the thing we have to contend with.
In the absence of any vestige at all of local control I say, Mr. Speaker, that the C.B.C. ought to be mighty careful about overriding policy. While I am speaking on it, let me just say a word about overriding policy. As I gathered from the report-and I had to get it, as a matter of fact, mainly from the minority report-the overriding policy of the C.B.C. is to give the Canadian people what they ought to have, not what they want. One could debate the validity of that assumption for a long time. I am not going to attempt to do it this afternoon; but who is to say what the Canadian people ought to have? That is the question. When we appoint a comparatively small group of men to decide and to determine what the Canadian people ought to have we are placing tremendous powers in their hands, powers that possibly may be exercised for good, if we get good men, but powers that could be exercised for ill, if we got the wrong kind of men. After all is said and done, whether the Canadian people get what they ought to have is not determined by a policy that we might agree upon here. It depends upon how willing the men are to find out what they ought to have and then to give it to them, men who are appointed to important positions like the board of governors of the C.B.C.
Perhaps it is correct to say that the overriding policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ought to be to give the people
8B8

Committee on Radio Broadcasting what they ought to have, but just the same I think there ought to be some care exercised in letting the people in certain localities in Canada help determine what they want, too. That thing ought to be weighed pretty carefully. I believe a good case can be made for at least a certain amount of decentralization of this whole matter of broadcasting. How in the world can people safeguard the faith, wholesomeness of mind and thoughts of tlv'ir boys and girls if they are going to be subjected day after day to voices over the radio that have not the slightest conviction, the slightest evidence of faith, loyalty or patriotism in them, and especially if we have no way of counteracting that sort of thing by having them listen to men whose voices ring with faith, loyalty, patriotism and conviction.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in the limited amount of time I spend listening to the radio I rarely hear voices that ring with those qualities. Why is that? I believe that is a question the board of governors and management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will have to answer. Our people are deeply concerned about it. When it sits I hope the committee will give careful consideration to this overriding policy, and perhaps make some suggestions for improvement.
I hope the committee will also give some attention to the allocation of free time to political parties on the program known as "The Nation's Business". I am going to come to the point by saying bluntly that there is no fairness in the allocation as it stands at the present time. I have been sitting on the inter-party committee for some years, and trying my best to get a fairer distribution of time. The Progressive Conservative, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit groups agreed some time ago that the fairest division of the time on these free political broadcasts would be an equal division. As a matter of fact this was suggested by the representative of the Progressive Conservatives, and was agreed to by the other two opposition parties. But no; the liberal members would not agree, no matter what logical arguments were presented. They were constantly swayed by the thought that because there were three parties who might be opposed to their views, and who might express that opposition on the air, they should have three times the amount of time allotted to anyone else; that is the logic that swayed their reasoning. As a result they have until recently arrogated unto themselves an unfair proportion of these free broadcasts. In recent years the allocation has been better, but it is certainly far from fair as yet.
At the present time we are engaged in a series of forty broadcasts that started on September 4 and which will end on December
[Mr Low.]
11 of this year. Out of that series of forty, the Liberals took sixteen quarter hours, the Progressive Conservative twelve quarter hours, the C.C.F. eight quarter hours and the Social Credit four quarter hours. By what specious reasoning they could arrive at that sort of division is beyond me. They act as if it requires sixteen quarter hours to put over the same old stuff, but someone else who is presenting some new ideas only requires four quarter hours. What I suggest is that those who control this allocation of time are afraid to let the Canadian people hear some new ideas.


Mr. Blackmore:: To hear the truth.


Solon Earl Low: To hear the truth; that is right. For that reason they limit them in such a shameful manner as that. I believe the committee ought to take this under consideration. When we raised this whole question of a fairer allocation of time on these political broadcasts, we were told by the management of the C.B.C. that they had nothing to do with it, and that the allocation was made by a parliamentary committee. Since they have passed the buck back to the parliamentary committee, let me suggest that one of the major responsibilities the committee should assume is a fairer allocation of time. The committee should tell the C.B.C. that is what they want. When I see the way the committee is loaded, I can fully appreciate how far we will get. I have taken a look at that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better leave it to the C.B.C.


Solon Earl Low: Sure, the committee will say, "We will leave it to the C.B.C." It will be bandied back and forth, and we shall never get anywhere.
I come to this question of control. The minister dealt briefly with what I consider is a very important aspect of national radio. I read the Massey commission report and on page 289 I noticed they had this to say:
We therefore recommend:
d.	That persons engaged in radio broadcasting in Canada be granted the right to notice of consideration by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of matters directly affecting them; the right to full opportunity to be heard in such matters in person or by counsel, and to a public hearing on request.
e.	That persons engaged in radio broadcasting in Canada directly and separately affected by a final decision of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on any matter in which this beard has final authority be granted the right of appeal to a federal court against substantial-
Which I suppose means gross.
-miscarriage of justice.
But it has to be gross before there is any appeal. While the majority of the commission did make that recommendation, I hope the

committee in its studies will not lose sight of the three weaknesses of that position that were pointed out in specific terms in the minority report of Dr. Surveyer. One finds those three weaknesses listed on page 386 of the report. They read:
The board of governors would become a court of first instance instead of a court of last instance, as at present, but it would still remain as judge in its own case.
Let me interpolate here, sir, that Dr. Surveyer is referring to the recommendation I read a moment ago. Then he continues:
The fact that the court of appeal would be called upon to decide on an issue which had already been decided by the board of governors would, inevitably, prejudice the issue in favour of the governor's decision. Moreover, most cases would have technical aspects which the court would not be competent to decide, even with the help of occasional assessors. Furthermore, the majority of the questions submitted for appeal would require quick decisions which no court of justice could be expected to render in time on account of the cumbersome processes of law.
I hope the committee will not overlook those three weaknesses of the majority position with respect to control. I believe that, however desirable it may be that the control be vested in a single body under the control of this parliament, that is not possible so long as the committee that is appointed consists of a preponderance of one political party, the Liberal party that is in power. Under the existing circumstances and practices, the Massey commission might just as well have recommended that control be vested in a single political party. There is too much of politics in the C.B.C. now. I think we ought to see to it that some change is made in this matter of referring the whole consideration of policy, finances, control and what not to a committee of this house that is weighted heavily in favour of one political party. I think that is an aspect of the whole matter of control that ought to engage the attention of the committee. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this parliament is really to exercise control over one centralized body, namely the C.B.C., the wise course would be to see to it that there is a more even distribution of the members of that committee. That is the only way we could ever have parliamentary instead of political party control of the C.B.C. policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be made in proportion to the popular vote, giving the government 49 per cent.


Solon Earl Low: As to the matter of financing,
I realize all too well that costs have increased and that the C.B.C. needs more revenue, particularly if the services to the Canadian people are to be maintained. I am glad the Massey commission did not recommend that
Committee on Radio Broadcasting the present licence fee be increased as a means of getting that revenue. There had been some suggestion for a few years that the licence fee be increased to $5 or $7 or some such figure in order to help to get the necessary income. I think it would be better if the licence fee were wiped out altogether. I am quite in agreement with my hon. friends to my right. I think they both feel that such a course might be better.
I am glad the commission recommended grants out of the general revenue of Canada to keep the C.B.C. going. I am quite prepared to support grants of whatever the C.B.C. requires to render to the Canadian people the services that are desirable, good and wholesome. I believe the C.B.C. has had a great deal of trouble in collecting the licence fee, that a great many people never paid a licence fee, and that the cost of collection has perhaps been unjustified in the light of what we have learned since this licence system was first introduced. I believe further that the sooner we get rid of the licences, the better.
There is one point 1 should like to make here, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) made a good point when he said he thought we should not at this time be providing grants for the C.B.C. for four or five years ahead. I believe no such thing ought to be done, unless it is made clear that the radio committee will be called each session and given an opportunity of studying the whole C.B.C. policy, what they are doing, the services they are giving to the Canadian people, and any protests the Canadian people are making, before the grant is made in the estimates. Along with the hon. member for Eglinton, I think an item should be included in the estimates each year so that hon. members of this house would be given an opportunity to discuss C.B.C. policy. I believe the hon. member for Eglinton made a right good point, and I support it fully.
As to the personnel of the board of governors and the management of the C.B.C., let me make it clear that of them I have nothing to say but the best. In my personal relations with them I have never had any cause for complaint at all. If there has been any near cause for complaint, it has been that they have not been any too clear about their own responsibilities. Perhaps that has been because they do not know exactly how far there is parliamentary control of policy. Maybe they are doubtful about it, the same as I am. I have great respect for those gentlemen, as far as I know them. I want to make it clear that I have no axe to grind in what I have said here today.

Committee on Radio Broadcasting
There is one other point I should like to mention before I conclude my remarks. It is in connection with this whole question of television. We in this group feel that a good case can be made out-in fact, I would say that it has already been made out-for leaving to the private stations the development of television in this country. I am saying that now, and also adding that it should come under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We feel that the development of television and the broadcasts should be left to the private stations. The cost of television in Canada as a whole is going to be great if it is developed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The broadcasts themselves will be available to only a comparatively small part of the Canadian people, but all the rest are going to have to pay for the broadcasts even though they do not get them. That will probably be the case for a good number of years. I say that it would be unfair to those who pay the cost in taxes but get no television. For this reason and others I say the committee should give most earnest consideration to this whole matter of leaving television development in this country to the private stations, under the control, of course, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
There are many other things which could be said, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to take up any more time of the house. I should like, however, to end on this note. I believe the members of this house and the people of Canada generally owe a debt of gratitude to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. That association makes available a mechanism by which we can actually operate democracy in a better way than it has ever been* operated before in this country. They make it possible for free time over their stations to be available to all members of parliament, I understand. They make it possible to record speeches on discs down here in the city of Ottawa so they can be sent out to local stations, thereby making it possible for us, while we are here over extended periods of time, to keep in close touch with our people and to render reports. I want to pay tribute to that contribution which is being made by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and to thank them publicly for what they are doing. My people appreciate it, and I deeply appreciate it; and I am sure that it is making for a better brand of democratic control.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have had a comprehensive review of the purpose of this resolution and of the purpose for which this committee is proposed. In presenting the motion the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) has embraced both

the resolution itself setting up the committee and legislation which is now drafted and is to be presented to the house. In doing so he has indicated fairly clearly the government's opinions in regard to certain aspects of this subject. I think that is helpful because many of the decisions which must be made will undoubtedly be basic ones in regard to policy, and it is helpful to have some indication of the thoughts the government has formed in regard to a matter so important as this. There has been a review of the historic background of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not propose to repeat the quotations which have already been read into the record and which will appear in Hansard, showing the beginning of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in May of 1932, when the Canadian broadcasting commission was created, which later became the corporation but was in fact one continuing body. There is, however, one point that should be re-emphasized, I think.
The review of the history of broadcasting in this country, which has already been given, has referred1 to a statement by the then prime minister of Canada who, on May 18, 1932, said this:
When parliament makes Its appropriation for one year, it is bound then by the expected revenues of that year. If however the revenues are larger and there is a surplus of $200,000 or $300,000 and parliament comes to make appropriations in the next year, the appropriation is not limited to the expected revenue of that year but also to the revenue that accrues from the accumulated surplus of the year before.
We have come a very long way, as has already been pointed out, from that original concept of the Canadian broadcasting commission, now known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It seems to me that as we review what has taken place it is important to examine the continuity of evolution, and to go back to what was really the beginning. That is found in the motion presented by the then prime minister on March 2, 1932, when he moved that a committee be set up. In the first paragraph of the terms of reference to the committee we find these words:
To consider the report of the royal commission on radio broadcasting, dated the 11th day of September, 1929, and commonly known as the Alrd report.
That committee then proceeded to examine the Aird report and to make the recommendations which led to the setting up of the Canadian broadcasting commission. In the recommendation that the commission be set up it was made clear that it was the intention and expectation that the commission would be self-sustaining. That was the general policy; and that policy has in fact been adhered to, although from time to time-in

fact each year-it has been necessary to make substantial supporting contributions to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
What we now have before us is a departure from that principle. What is now proposed is that the idea that the corporation shall be self-sustaining is to be abandoned, and that it shall look to the national revenue for the money necessary to carry on its services. When I say that, I am not overlooking the fact that apparently it is contemplated that the licence fee would be continued. In considering this whole problem I think the subject of the licence fee must be considered in the light of the fact that the proposal now before us does contemplate a clear departure from the policy adopted at the time this licence fee was originally charged.
The licence fee was intended to provide the necessary revenue. If that principle were to be followed, then of course the licence fee would be adjusted to the revenue requirements. It has not been found satisfactory to follow that course, I should think for the reason that the Canadian radio public would not welcome such a proposal. For that very reason it is now intended to look to the national revenue for the support necessary to give broadcasts of the kind regarded as necessary and desirable by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I think this is a time for the government, as a matter of policy, to indicate its decision in the matter. We know that the government's policy in this respect will be adopted by virtue of the majority supporting it. If the government is going to advocate a departure as radical as that now proposed, then I think it should go the whole way, abandon the licence fee entirely and look to the national revenue for the money required for this purpose.
There are obvious reasons why this is a good time to follow that course. First of all, we know the very high cost of collecting these licences. Last year $5,571,000 was collected. The cost of collecting those licence fees amounted to $675,779, approximately 12 per cent of the amount collected. It does not need to be argued that this is an unduly high percentage of revenue to be paid simply for the process of collecting.
There is, however, another reason why this licence is unsatisfactory, and why this would be a good time to end it. There are many areas in Canada where those who own radio sets pay a licence, yet receive no return in C.B.C. broadcasts. That is due to the fact that there are large areas where C.B.C. broadcasts do not reach the radio receiving sets in sufficient strength to give any real reception to the people who try to get those
Committee on Radio Broadcasting broadcasts. I do not need to describe the areas; they are known to hon. members. I am sure it is well known to hon. members that on a number of occasions there have been strong objections to the fact that in a given area people are charged a licence fee for something which was intended to give them programs, but which they cannot receive.
Now a new problem arises. At such time as television is brought out from behind the iron curtain and we get it in this country- we could have had it long ago if the simple device had been employed of giving licences to private stations which were ready to start it-a great problem will arise as to who is to pay for television broadcasting and who is not. There will be a number of places in Canada where people will be able to receive television broadcasts from the United States but will not be able to receive television broadcasts from Canada at the same point and on the same receiving set. That is going to create a sense of injustice. If the higher licence fee which has been suggested for television sets is to be charged everyone owning a television set, many people in Canada are going to pay that licence fee to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and then find that it is impossible to obtain any television broadcasts from that corporation, yet be able to receive television broadcasts from the United States from stations which operate as free stations.
These are only a few of the confusing problems in connection with the licensing of radio and television sets which suggest added reasons why that licence fee should be done away with. Therefore I would hope that when this committee meets the government will give an indication that it is ready to suggest that the licence fees paid on radio and television sets be abandoned; and if the government is going to give substantial support to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as has been suggested by the minister this afternoon, that this then become a charge on the national revenue for whatever amount is required.
Having said that the government should provide whatever amount is required, I then come to the fact that there is reason for setting up some machinery by which the responsibility of parliament may be exercised, not only in regard to the type of broadcasts but also in regard to the financial setup and the operation of the broadcasting organization as well. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) said this afternoon that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible to parliament

Committee on Radio Broadcasting rather than to the government. If that proposition is to be accepted and if it is to be a reality, then there must be a committee sitting every session to deal not only with the procedure by which broadcasting and telecasting will be conveyed to the people, but so there may be an examination of the financial set-up and the possibility of economies and possible adjustment of programs so that the amount to be voted may be the amount actually required. The only way parliamentary responsibility can be exercised is to have continuous supervision by parliament. That supervision is not possible unless there is an effective body such as a committee on broadcasting to deal with these matters every year and throughout the session.
I come now to the form of the motion that is before us. I notice that in the speech from the throne reference was made to the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. On different occasions during this session it has been indicated that a committee would be set up to deal with that report in so far as it dealt with broadcasting. For that reason I find it difficult to understand why the terms of reference of the committee now being set up do not call upon them to review the findings of that royal commission. I read the reference in the motion back in 1932 to show that on that occasion there was specific reference to the consideration of the report of the royal commission. We now have a new departure. We have before us the findings of a royal commission; yet in this case the committee is set up to-
(1) consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development.
Having had some experience of the strict way in which the form of a motion is sometimes interpreted in committees, I hope the omission of any reference to the Massey report does not mean that this committee is not going to be in position to explore fully the subjects discussed in the Massey report, not only the recommendations made but the subjects that were brought up for consideration. If that limitation were imposed a very real problem would arise as to whether the minority report would also be before that committee. The government has to some extent indicated its intention to carry into operation the majority recommendations of the Massey commission by the legislation being brought forward. I trust that when the committee is set up it will be free to deal with all subjects referred to, not only the majority but the minority recommendations as well.

I am glad that it was pointed out by members of other parties here this afternoon that it is only natural that we should be advocating the best possible use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was in 1932 that a Conservative government brought 'this organization 'into existence under the name of the Canadian broadcasting commission. The broad purposes of this organization were established at that time. During the years that have followed the Conservative party has been consistent in its support of the broad purposes that were laid down on that occasion by the prime minister of Canada. We believe there is a vitally important place for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation within the framework of the broadcasting requirements of this country. However, we believe that at this time, when there has to be a general review of the policies of the corporation, it would be a good thing to deal not only with the question of licence fees and matters of that kind but the real problem which has become increasingly important, that of the division between supervision and operation.
At the time the Canadian broadcasting commission started its activities in 1932 the total of all broadcasting in Canada was only a very small fraction of what we have today. This is now a public activity of immense importance to all Canadians. We have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation performing a wide variety of public services, and we have the information that before long it will be embarking on telecasting as well as radio broadcasting. If public ownership of a service of this kind is to operate satisfactorily side by side with free and privately owned stations, some policy should be followed such as that which has been followed through the years in the case of the railways, where we have a large national system and a number of small privately owned railways in addition to the much larger Canadian Pacific. It would be exactly the same thing we are doing now in the case of radio if we had the Canadian National Railways not only maintaining their own operation but also acting as a supervising body telling every other railway in Canada what it could and could not do. That has never been regarded as a sound course of action. This government has never indicated its belief in any such course. If the procedure followed in connection with the railways, where supervision of the railways and the regulations applied to them come under the administrative supervision of an independent body, is sound, then I submit it is equally sound in the case of this other public service

which has now assumed such very large proportions. I therefore suggest that, when this subject is being considered by the committee, the government should indicate its willingness to set up a separate supervising body as has been recommended on different occasions, a body which will be able to maintain a detached and judicial approach to the requirements of the public as well as the private broadcasting operations of this country.
I do not think we can have public and private operations working side by side on a satisfactory competitive basis unless this procedure is followed. There is a reason why that course should be followed which goes beyond its simple obvious justice. Unless there is an independent supervisory body under whose direction both private and publicly owned broadcasting operations are carried out, there is no assurance of that measure of competition which in itself is one guarantee that we have some standard by which we can test the proper cost of broadcasting in this country. In making these remarks I am not suggesting that there is any deliberate intent to prevent the proper operation of the private stations, but it would not be human if those who are responsible for broadcasting operations, as the board of the broadcasting corporation is, were not inclined to resist to some extent private operations which may encroach on their own activities. It would be asking too much of human nature to expect to find such complete detachment from the particular activity in which one is engaged.
One of the reasons that we are able to test the cost of operation of the railways, one of the reasons that the railway board is able to examine the problem with facts readily available, is that we have competing systems which carry on under similar regulations. I hope that when the committee meets it will not only give consideration to the setting up of such an independent supervisory body, but that it will also give consideration to the desirability of permitting the private stations to operate on exactly the same basis as the publicly owned stations. In the case of the railways the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific are able to compete with each other on a fair and equal basis. If that is good for the railways, I am unable to see any strong argument in support of an entirely different system applying to this other type of public service which, while it may be unlike a railway operation in many ways, nevertheless is a national service going out to all the people of Canada in a somewhat similar manner to that of the railway services.
Committee on Radio Broadcasting
I hope the committee will give consideration to permitting something that is the very foundation of satisfactory broadcasts of a cultural nature. I hope the committee will give favourable consideration to permitting the private stations to organize their own networks in exactly the same way that the publicly owned organization can arrange its networks. After all, it is only when you can have networks broadcasting from a single point that you are able to arrange programs of a quality which will give to our people the very best either in cultural entertainment or in the various other programs that people want. It is interesting that the publicly owned organization, which is to be supported by such a substantial contribution from the national revenue, finds it desirable to use these services to carry to the people of Canada cultural broadcasts which emanate from the United States and are maintained and supported by privately owned stations. Those privately owned stations, which provide musical and other broadcasts given to Canadians by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, could not possibly pay for such programs unless they were able to arrange networks to bring into one organization stations right across the country. With that example before us I suggest that the committee give careful consideration to this question. I should hope that the government, which after all in the end will decide through the committee what it wants done, would recognize the desirability of placing the private stations on a fair competitive basis with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in that respect.
It has been said by the minister today that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is giving a very important useful service to Canada. No one will more readily support that proposition than I. Excellent programs are being carried to the people of Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There are religious programs, educational programs, historical programs, as well as the broad cultural programs, which are of great advantage to our people. On the other hand there are some programs that are not so desirable. I do wish to support the proposition that in a country of immense distances, such as ours, it undoubtedly is necessary to create a special organization such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to carry educational and other similar programs into areas where the strictly commercial aspect of broadcasting would hardly support them.
I have had something to do with the educational programs on different occasions, and I cannot speak too highly of the cooperation which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has given in the provision of

Committee on Radio Broadcasting educational programs to our schools and homes in consultation with the departments of education of the different provinces of Canada. One of the most valuable things the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been doing is providing historical programs which would not be available to the people of Canada in any other way. That would hardly be the kind of broadcasting that would be carried under any commercial system to every part of Canada that the C.B.C. reaches. I cannot think of any function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is of more vital importance than to give to the people of Canada knowledge of their own history, pride in their own traditions and a love of the different parts of the country which form one united nation. That is being done extremely well. I would hope that programs of that nature could be greatly extended. That is one of the very important functions of a system such as this. These are the special functions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 1 question very much whether some of the other programs that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carries might not well be left to the othe- stations. Many of the programs carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-some of them from outside of Canada-raise neither the cultural or educational standards of our people. I admit that they are entertaining, but at that point it seems to me we must decide whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is going to keep as its main purpose the cultural, educational and historical features of their activities, which justify the very substantial payments from the national revenue that are contemplated.
Having said that, and having indicated my own belief that this is an organization which should receive our support, I do wish to refer to one subject that has been mentioned on different occasions, and which was mentioned again this afternoon. Hon. members are well aware 'that for some time very vigorous objection has been taken by the heads of all the great church organizations in Canada to broadcasts which, in the opinion of those church leaders, constitute a threat to our people in so far as they may be regarded as anti-religious teaching. I noticed this afternoon it was suggested that it would be a mistake to treat Canadians as children and to hold back from the Canadian people any material because it is regarded as unpalatable. That is a strange doctrine to propound in regard to an organization which is going to be maintained at considerable expense to the taxpayers of Canada for cultural and other similar purposes. I do not believe it is logical that we should make available a publicly owned system for the purpose of undermining

the religious convictions of the people of this country. It is not just a question of freedom of speech; it is not just a question of putting two different views before the public and letting them form their judgment. Those who seek to undermine the religious convictions of our people are ready enough to avail themselves of every opportunity to carry on then-very undesirable activities without making available to them the kind of speech that is being paid for by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this case. We have been told that the corporation must not limit the things that go out over the air in regard to thoughts of this kind. Well, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is imposing a very severe limitation on what can go out at a time when democracy is supposed to be so important. One of the basic rights of democracy, namely the discussion of public affairs, is denied to the private stations by network at any time, and that is under the authority of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I submit that if it is appropriate for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to say that they are going to limit the use of radio broadcasting in this country in the case of the public discussion of democracy itself, they would be on much better ground if they also said they were prepared to stop this mental poison being carried over the airwaves of Canada. This has been before the public for some time. Representations have been made to the government, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is well aware of the objections that have been taken. The Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the United church, the Presbyterian church, and I think most if not all of the other denominations, have severely criticized the action of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this matter without any suggestion that one denomination was more interested in it than another. I should add to those I mentioned the Baptist church in Canada, because the leaders of that church have objected as well.
With that objection, I think that we should examine what is involved in this discussion. Over and over again it has been said that the underlying distinction between our democracy and the communist system is that our democracy is based upon religion; and upon the belief of the equality of each human being before God. The most powerful influence opposed to the spread of communism is religion itself. At a time when we are putting so much effort and so much of our wealth into the defence of our system, it seems utterly inconsistent that we should spend large sums of money on the maintenance of a publicly owned system for educational, cultural and other similar purposes, and at the

same time provide a means by which that culture and that system can be undermined. We do not pretend that we will permit blasphemy over the radio. Let anyone who has engaged in one of the free broadcasts use any blasphemous terms and he would be put off the air immediately. This blasphemy is worse than any of the more ordinary blasphemy which would immediately result in the person using it being put off the air. This is much worse because it is a subtle, dangerous type of blasphemy which sometimes is not detected for what it really is. I therefore strongly urge that one of the first things this committee discuss is the responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the decency of the broadcasts. Now I am simply amplifying the remarks I have made. We do not permit indecent broadcasts when we use the term "indecent" in another way, and we should not permit indecent broadcasts when that indecency relates to religious beliefs. The arguments are all one way. I should hope that at the very first opportunity this committee would consider this subject which has been raised by church leaders in this country, and by the various lay organizations of those churches. It is a subject which should be dealt with, and before very long.
I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that out of this committee will come recommendations which will greatly strengthen our broadcasting operations in this country. I close these remarks by expressing my belief that freedom of communication over the radio is just as important as freedom of communication through the press. It is no more in keeping with our democratic traditions that a government, even if indirectly through an agency it appoints, should in any way be in a position to limit freedom of speech over the radio any more than it limits freedom of speech through the press. We rely on the various restraints that are carried in our laws to protect the public against abuses in the press. Until we can rely on the same safeguards in regard to radio, I think when this subject is under consideration we will have taken a long step forward if we create an independent supervisory body, and under that supervisory body put public and private broadcasting on an equal and free basis in Canada.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: I rise to take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker, but very briefly, and to suggest two matters which I should like to bring before the house for consideration. The other day I was struck by some observations of recent immigrants to this country who were discussing the quality of our shortwave broadcasts as beamed to Europe. They were giving praise
Committee on Radio Broadcasting to the broadcasts emanating from certain European stations. They said those emanating from Paris were more efficacious than any others received behind the iron curtain, largely because they were handled in a light' sarcastic and satirical fashion, and made more of an impression upon those listeners who dared to listen to them than the other types of broadcasts.
When broadcasts to Europe by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were first suggested, I recall that emphasis was laid on the fact that we would send cultural broadcasts, factual broadcasts, and that type of thing. I suspect, sir, that no matter how worth-while programs of that type might be in ordinary times, those who risk their lives by listening to those broadcasts today would perhaps prefer to listen to something which would more clearly portray the possibilities and differences between life as they know it and life as it exists here. I hope when the committee deals with the matters referred to it that it will pay special attention to those broadcasts we are now beaming to Europe, and will make sure they are of a nature and quality which will make a profound appeal and give the greatest assistance to those people who may hear them.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we heard some reference to freedom of speech. There has been a reference, too, to the discussion which arises from time to time as to whether there should' be a regulatory body supervising the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the independent broadcasting companies. I believe those of us who sometimes speak in favour of such an independent body are misunderstood, because certainly there is no suggestion-at least there never has been in any thought of mine-that such a body should control the programming or interfere in any way whatever with the normal activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I agree with most of what has been said this afternoon concerning those programs. I believe the C.B.C. has been doing a remarkably efficient job. If there are news commentaries and other programs of that type which are subject to criticism, I am prepared to leave them to the good sense of the Canadian people.
When we suggest a regulatory body, I am reminded of something which once happened in which I personally participated. I should like to draw it to the attention of this house, even though I realize that personal associations should not be brought before the house at this or any other time. But in this particular instance the matter is so closely associated with free speech, and with the regulatory authority exercised by the C.B.C., that I think it is of more than academic interest. In 1949
ggg	HOUSE OF
Covimittee on Radio Broadcasting there was a general election in this country. At that time I happened to be the president of a local broadcasting company which owned and operated two transmitters in Nova Scotia. Whether I owned the company or _was simply an official, the fact remains that in so far as the record was concerned I was the head of that organization. I happened also to be the Progressive Conservative candidate in one of the constituencies in Nova Scotia.
I approached the manager of the radio company some weeks before the election to book time for a special broadcast on the Friday night before the election. I realize that under the regulations of the C.B.C.-and I think these are proper-the broadcasts should stop on the Friday night prior to the election. Some five or six weeks before the election I booked the Friday night for a live broadcast emanating from a public meeting. I booked the hours from 8:30 in the evening to 10 in order to make sure that those participating in that meeting would have full opportunity to make their views known on the air. I booked that time and we paid for it, Mr. Speaker; and I thought the matter was closed. Then what happened? Speaking now from memory, since it happened over two years ago; some time before the election [DOT] whether it was a week or whether it was ten days before the election I am not clear, but it was some short period-the manager of that station received instructions from the C.B.C. to the effect that no political broadcast could emanate over a private station on that Friday night. Why? Because the Prime Minister of Canada, who happened to belong to a different political party from the one to which I belong, was speaking over the air from 9 o'clock to 9:30. There was the position of a man who presumably-or at least it might be so argued
__owned his own radio station, who had
bought and paid for his time some weeks in advance, who was himself a candidate, and who was denied and forbidden the opportunity of speaking over his own station for half an hour in order that the public might listen to a speaker for a different political party. That was the situation as it existed at that time.
I have no complaint about that from a political standpoint. I think actually it did me a great deal of good because when I said this would happen, no one would believe me; but they listened and found out. At 9 o'clock we left the air and supplied a musical program for those who were listening and we also said that they could listen to it on the radio. This station was not carrying the other broadcast. That broadcast was being carried by another station entirely. This private station was forbidden to carry any


broadcast during such time as the C.B.C. station was carrying the broadcast of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Stick:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Certainly.


Leonard T. Stick: Did they state the reason?


George Clyde Nowlan: They said it was because
there was a political broadcast.


Leonard T. Stick: They did not say it was because the Prime Minister was speaking?


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course they did not say that it was because the Prime Minister was speaking. They said it was because a political broadcast was being given over the C.B.C. It might have been the Shah of Persia who was speaking, I suppose; but the fact remains that it was the Prime Minister. Anyone who knows anything would know that the Prime Minister, being the leader of the government party, would be the one speaking on the last occasion before the polls opened on Monday morning. I do not complain about that; but I complain about this authority exercised over private stations. At any rate, as a result of that, we had to break the meeting into two parts, have it on the air from 8:30 to 9 o'clock, leave the air from 9 to 9:30 and go back on the air from 9:30 to 10 o'clock. I am not suggesting for one moment that this was done because any individual happened to have a radio booking. It was undoubtedly arranged a long time before. There is no personal implication whatsoever in the situation. But I suggest that happenings like that create not an antagonism but some criticism of the general over-all controls exercised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think it would be a good thing for the corporation, and that it would tend to lessen criticism such as this, if we had a competent commission which would at least prevent interference with time used on a private station.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
amendment to increase number of

James Joseph McCann: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act. 1936, to increase the number of governors from nine to eleven and to provide for their tenure of office; to provide for benefits from the pension fund for members of the corporation engaged full-time in

the business of the corporation and their dependents; and to provide further that the Minister of Finance may grant to the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of four million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in the fiscal year that began on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and the sum of six million, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in each of the four next following fiscal years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister not going to make a statement at this time?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, when I made the statement with reference to setting up the committee, I thought I incorporated in it all that need be said with reference to this resolution; and it was hoped that it would not be necessary to have repetition.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I think I understood the minister correctly, but I just want to be sure. Was it his intention to refer this bill to the committee?


James Joseph McCann: Yes; when we give it second reading.


Solon Earl Low: That is what I mean.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: While I am on my feet, may I ask the minister if he can enlighten the committee with respect to the present pension arrangement for members of the corporation engaged full time in the business of the corporation, and their dependents? I note that is part 1 of the provisions of the resolution.


James Joseph McCann: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot give the details with reference to the pension plan-


Solon Earl Low: I would just ask for a general statement.


James Joseph McCann: -except to say that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have a pension plan of their own which covers the employees, and in the event of their death, their dependents.


Solon Earl Low: How long has it been in
operation?


James Joseph McCann: It has been in operation for a number of years. All it relates to here is the chairman of the board of governors. He was considered to be a member of the corporation rather than an employee, and on a technical point an opinion was given by the Department of Justice that he was not eligible for pension. We want to change the act so it will make it possible for him to be pensionable the same as any other employee.


Solon Earl Low: With provision, I assume, to make it possible for him to pay back contributions to the fund in order that he can get the benefits?
Canadian Broadcasting Act


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Mr. Gibson:: Will the minister say what is the purpose of the increase in the number of governors from nine to eleven?


James Joseph McCann: The purpose of the extension is to widen the scope and the territory to be represented. At the present time there are nine members on the board of governors. Newfoundland, the newest province, is not represented. We also believe that probably the western provinces should be given greater representation. It was therefore deemed advisable to increase the membership of the board from nine to eleven.


John Lambert Gibson: Can the minister say anything about the tenure of office?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is in the bill.


James Joseph McCann: The tenure of office of the board of governors is a period of three years.


John Lambert Gibson: Is that tenure being changed?


James Joseph McCann: No. The tenure of office of the chairman of the board of governors is to be changed from three years to ten years.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In view of the fact that provision is made for benefits from the pension fund for members of the corporation engaged full time in the business of the corporation, is the minister in a position to inform the house and the country whether or not at the present time, as to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation among other groups of government institutions, a recommendation or report has been made on the general principles of revision of salaries? Tonight the Ottawa Journal contains an article by Mr. Charles Lynch to the effect that the civil service commission has made a report to the government on the general principles of revision of civil service salaries. Then it goes on to say:
The "general principles" of the salary question in the public service are that the government wants to pay its employees at the same rates for similar work paid by good private employers throughout Canada.
It goes on to point out that certain groups require a treasury board order in order to make provision for increases in salaries to levels commensurate with those paid in private industry or in private enterprise. Then it says:
Salary revision for government agencies like the national research council and the national film board have to be approved by the treasury board.
Then it says:
Provision has been made for salary increases for the staff of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which, like the Bank of Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, does not need treasury board approval.
898

Canadian Broadcasting Act
Then it says that the general increase in the pending revision will run from five to fifteen per cent. In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is mentioned as one of those institutions that do not require a treasury board order, and that promises have already been made that such increases will take place, would the minister say whether that is so, and whether or not there is going to be a general revision upward. I mention that in connection with the employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because when the committee is set up there is one matter in respect of which there is always a denial of information, and that is with respect to salaries. Complaints have come to me that while inordinately high salaries are paid to certain individuals, others are being denied equality in salary levels. For that reason, in order to assure equality in salary for those doing like work, and in order as well to bring those salaries in line with those paid in private industry, I am asking the minister whether he can tell the committee and country what is being done in this connection, and whether or not salaries in keeping with the responsibilities of officials of the C.B.C. are being provided for.


James Joseph McCann: I must admit I have no knowledge whatever with reference to any revision of salaries in the C.B.C. at the present time. That is just as much news to me as it is to the hon. member. The matter of salaries in the C.B.C. is a matter for the board of governors.


John George Diefenbaker: It has not been considered?


James Joseph McCann: Not by the government, nor have I knowledge of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was hoping the minister would exercise his right to close the debate on the resolution we had before us a short time ago. However, it was recognized by the house when the debate opened this afternoon that these two matters were closely related, and that perhaps discussion would go along on the two of them. Therefore I wonder if the minister would not now make some comment in reply to some of the points drawn to his attention.
I would say I do not share the view of those who have been arguing for a separate regulatory body. I feel the Massey commission dealt with that point clearly, and I agree with their view. I should like to hear the minister tell us what the set-up would be if a separate regulatory body were established. I wonder how that body would carry out the will of parliament, which is that parliament shall have control over radio policies,


so far as Canada is concerned. That being the case, would not parliament expect that separate regulatory body to call upon the publicly owned radio authority to do the very things that the C.B.C. is doing today? In that event would we not have a duplication, and perhaps some uncertainty as to where the matter stands?
Perhaps I am going ahead and answering as the minister would answer. But I suggest to him that something should be said in reply to these points. My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, has made the case, and made it effectively. But since that time there have been these other speeches, and I should certainly like to hear from the minister upon those points.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, coupling the debate on this resolution with the debate which took place in setting up the committee, I wish to say that it has been most interesting and I thank those hon. gentlemen who have taken part for the contributions they have made. As I listened, it did not seem to me that there was a single matter brought up which was not brought before the Massey commission when they were making their investigation with respect to radio broadcasting and television. I think most of the answers can be found in the report that has been given on these two subjects.
Let me assure the leader of the opposition that he need have no nervousness or be agitated at all with respect to the latitude of the terms of reference to the committee. I do not think one could possibly study the matters referred to in the motion without having reference to the Massey commission report, whether it be the majority or the minority report.
As I have said, I think most of the answers are given to the questions which have been asked. If hon. members would turn to page 288 they will find what I believe would be my answer, where it says:
In the Interests of the national system and of the country as a whole, we recommend rejection of the demands by private broadcasters for a separate regulatory body and for the privilege of forming private networks.
Both those questions are answered. Both those questions will be brought up again in committee. It is only a waste of time at this point for me to attempt to give categorically the answers I think should be given. I am not going to get into the position of answering the questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, where he sets up a sort of straw case, and wants to know what I would do in a particular instance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not my straw; it is the straw of the official opposition.


James Joseph McCann: No matter where it came
from, I would regard it as being as much straw in one place as in the other. So I shall not get into the position of attempting to answer those questions.
However there were one or two matters brought up concerning which I have opinions of my own. One had to do with the entire abolition of the fee. I am not in favour of that at the present time. It brings in a revenue of about $6 million a year. I can say from experience in collecting a lot of money over the last few years that it does not make it one whit easier to collect it simply by transferring the collection to another department of government. If we do away entirely with the licence fee, then that $6 million that is collected will have to be obtained from some other source of taxation, either by a special tax or-


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt,
but I think the minister will agree that it does not cost 12 per cent to collect national revenue of other kinds.


James Joseph McCann: No, it costs about $1.66 to
collect $100. I realize there is a great disparity here, in the matter of collection. But I have gone through the matter in my own mind on a number of occasions through the years, to see if we could not devise some system whereby this fee, if it is to continue, could be collected for less money and with a lot less trouble. I have not been able to devise that yet. In passing let me say there is a great sum of money in store for someone who will invent something on a radio whereby the money will be slipped in and the operator will receive in return a licence for six months or a year. So if you gentlemen want to patent some arrangement whereby that could be done, I am sure you will become multimillionaires.


John Lambert Gibson: It could be collected when the set was sold, but that would cover only one year.


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that there are any other points I want to deal with. I hope the committee will operate shortly, and I assure hon. members that every facility will be given to the committee to have the services of members of the corporation who will be able to answer all questions. I hope to be a member of the committee myself, and I shall be there to deal with questions of policy as we go along.


Solon Earl Low: There was one question raised which the minister has not dealt with and which I should like to hear threshed out 94699-571
Canadian Broadcasting Act briefly before the resolution passes. What does the minister think of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Eglinton with regard to the close supervision of the affairs of the C.B.C. by the House of Commons, through a committee? Does he not think it would be advisable to have a yearly survey of all the affairs of the C.B.C. before voting another grant, say of $6 million or something like that?


James Joseph McCann: I have always been in favour of the annual setting up of a committee to go into the affairs of the C.B.C. My experience in this house over a number of years is that while such a committee has not been set up every year, it has been set up quite frequently. While I respect the view of hon. members with respect to having finance handled by means of a yearly vote, there are certain objections to that. One of the bugbears of financing the C.B.C. from year to year is that they do not know where they are going financially. Programming, the hiring of artists and the entering into commercial contracts have to be done a long time ahead. For instance, if we are going to cut down the programs next summer, the arrangements would have to be made now. In the same way, if we are going to expand them we would have to work six months ahead in order to make our contracts.
The amount of money is not likely to be diminished or increased. If it is on the basis of $1 per person per year, less the licence and commercial revenue, the C.B.C. will be in a position to know its financial position and to act accordingly. We will have to pay off some of our debts. We have to make some capital expenditures. We have to make some maintenance expenditures as we go along. I submit that the only way that can be done in a truly businesslike way is to have some sort of budget and some sort of assurance that we are going to get the money to meet those obligations.


Solon Earl Low: I am sure the minister did not do it intentionally but all the way through his remarks he was referring to "we". I suppose that he meant the C.B.C. as distinguished from the government or parliament.


James Joseph McCann: I am speaking for the C.B.C.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. McCann thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Business of the House
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): On Monday we will resume the debate on the address. If it is disposed of we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture

concerning the establishment of an agricultural products board, and later on the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour.
At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Monday, November 12, 1951